App Connector: Disconnect

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

The description explicitly says the tool is 'not read-only' and mutates session state, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. However, it also claims the tool is idempotent ('closing an already-closed session is a no-op'), while the annotation idempotentHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction, making the behavioral metadata unreliable.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a behavioral note and usage guidance. The three sentences each carry distinct information with no filler. The 'not read-only' clarification and idempotency note are useful despite the conflict with annotations.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and mutation behavior well. However, the idempotency contradiction with the annotations leaves the agent with conflicting signals, which is a meaningful completeness gap for a state-mutating 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 100%, and the only parameter, 'device', is already fully documented in the input schema with details about IP, serial, and fallback to the focused Dev Studio tab. The tool description adds nothing meaningful beyond 'targeted device,' so the baseline 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 and resource: 'Close the RALE / App Connector session on the targeted device.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and distinguishes it from siblings like app_connector_connect or telnet_disconnect. An agent can tell what this tool does without needing to infer from the name alone.

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 gives concrete use cases: 'free the session or force a clean reconnect.' It also provides an explicit when-not-to-use signal: 'normal RALE tools do not require you to disconnect between calls.' It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the usage context is clear enough.

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