group_disconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that only masked relays are disconnected and all other channels remain unchanged, which is the core behavioral trait. It does not cover return values, error handling, or hardware side effects, but for a simple relay command the primary behavior is well disclosed.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool name and immediately states the action and its effect. There is no filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the action, the scope (mask), and the preservation behavior. The schema covers the address parameter, and the absence of an output schema lowers the need for return-value documentation. It lacks some usage guidance, but that is covered in the usage_guidelines dimension, so overall context is adequate.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for both mask and address. The description adds a high-level restatement of the mask behavior ('其余通道保持原状') but does not introduce new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('断开' / disconnect) and resource ('继电器' / relay), and clarifies the scope via mask. It explicitly states that other channels remain unchanged, which distinguishes this tool from group_connect, group_toggle, and all_relays_off. This provides a clear and distinct purpose.

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 implies the primary use case: disconnecting a subset of relays while preserving the rest. This contextual guidance helps an agent choose this tool over broad actions like all_relays_off. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of full alternative differentiation.

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