Disconnect Device

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 two real behaviors — the heartbeat ceases and the connection is torn down — and scopes the connection to MCP's own. It says nothing about idempotency, what happens if no connection exists, or whether an in-flight motion stops.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the two effects. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for a teardown operation with lifecycle side effects.

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?

No parameters and an output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. What is missing is precondition and failure context: whether a connection must exist, and whether calling it twice or while a waveform is running is safe.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline applies. The sentence does correctly imply the operation acts on the currently held connection rather than a named target.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: stop the heartbeat and tear down the BLE connection that MCP holds. The 'held by MCP' qualifier usefully scopes ownership versus device-side stopping, though no sibling is named to sharpen the contrast with stop_device.

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 indication of when to call this versus stop_device, connect_device, or simply leaving the connection open. The agent must infer the teardown lifecycle from the tool name alone, which is risky given stop_device exists in the same family.

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