disconnect_user

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

Annotations already declare the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as consequences for the user, irreversibility, or impact on the network. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them.

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 short sentence with no filler words; every word carries meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

While simple, the tool is destructive and has an ambiguous optional 'device' parameter. The description provides no information on prerequisites (e.g., only active sessions), side effects, or what device refers to, leaving the agent under-informed for a safe invocation.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description makes no mention of user_id or device. This leaves the agent without meaning beyond the field titles, particularly for the optional 'device' parameter, which is unclear.

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 ('disconnects') and identifies the resource ('active user session'). It distinguishes this tool from user management siblings like disable_user or remove_user, though the session type (e.g., hotspot, PPPoE) is not specified.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives; the only hint is that it applies to an 'active' session, implying a prerequisite of an active session. It does not mention how to identify the user or what alternative exists for non-active sessions.

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