release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavioral trait, that this terminates/kills a connection (a destructive, non-reversible action), which is the most important signal. However, it omits permissions required, behavior when the name does not exist, and whether the operation is idempotent.

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, front-loaded sentence with the action first and the identifier second. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the essential action but leaves gaps around failure modes, permissions, and effects on the connection's state, which is thin for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'By name' clarifies that the parameter identifies the connection to kill, adding meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not specify naming conventions or whether the name is case-sensitive or unique.

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 gives a clear verb (kill) and resource (persistent connection), with a scoping clause ('by name'). It is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like connect and status, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as connect or reload, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that a connection must exist first). The only implied usage is inferring from 'persistent connection' that it targets an existing session.

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