vm_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the effects—releasing held input, closing the connection, stopping the temporary worker—but says nothing about idempotency, permission requirements, what happens if the session is already closed, or whether state is destroyed.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. However, the three-part action list is compressed into one clause, which slightly obscures the sequencing of the teardown steps.

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 low-complexity disconnect tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable account of what the operation does. It still falls short on parameter meaning and postconditions, which are important because no annotations or schema descriptions cover them.

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%, so both required parameters (session and owner_thread_id) are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention either parameter or explain what the session identifier represents or why owner_thread_id must be supplied, leaving the agent without the information needed to fill the arguments correctly.

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 specifies concrete actions—release held guest input, close the connection, stop the temporary worker—so an agent can understand this is a teardown operation for a VM/guest session. It is clear enough to distinguish from vm_connect, though it never names the resource as a VM or guest 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?

Usage is only implied: the teardown verbs suggest calling this when a VM session is no longer needed, and vm_connect in the sibling list makes the inverse relationship intuitive. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of when not to call it.

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