cst_disconnect

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing what side effects are avoided (closing CST, projects, or solver). It could further mention whether the session can be resumed with cst_connect, but the key behavioral trait is adequately conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately clarifies the non-destructive scope, which is exactly what an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless, outputless tool with a clear safety profile, the description is complete. An agent can correctly invoke it without any additional context about inputs, outputs, or side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input. A baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Detach') and resource ('this MCP session'), and explicitly clarifies what it does NOT do ('without closing CST, projects, or a running solver'). This clearly distinguishes it from project-close and simulation-stop tools among its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the use case: when the agent wants to end the MCP session but preserve the CST environment. It does not explicitly name alternatives like cst_connect or cst_close_project, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.