Disconnect a debug session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation cleans up child processes (gdb and gdbserver), which adds context, but it doesn't mention side effects, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 gets straight to the point. No wasted words, and it effectively communicates the tool's action and target.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema) and the available sibling context, the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention return behavior or prerequisites, but for a disconnect operation, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. The phrase 'a debug session's' clarifies that sessionId refers to a debug session identifier, providing meaning beyond the generic 'sessionId' field. However, it only implicitly connects the parameter to the operation.

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 the specific verb 'tears down' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a debug session's gdb and ST-LINK_gdbserver child processes.' This distinguishes it from siblings like debug_connect and debug_session_status, making its function 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?

The word 'Cleanly' implies this is the proper teardown method, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a mid-range score.

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