spaceclaim_disconnect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them by explaining the conditional consequence: a server-launched product exits and unsaved work is lost, while an attached product keeps running. That per-deployment divergence in blast radius is exactly the behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the risk condition immediately following. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the only thing an agent genuinely needs is what happens to the live session and any unsaved work — and the description delivers precisely that. Nothing material is missing for a correct 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 ('Close the connection'), and contrasts the two session modes (server-launched vs attached) so the agent understands what is being torn down. It does not name the sibling 'spaceclaim_connect' as its counterpart, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the terminal cleanup step, and the '(unsaved work is lost)' parenthetical hints at saving first. There is no explicit 'call this when finished' guidance, no instruction to pair it with save_design, and no statement about reconnect behavior.

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