disconnect

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

Annotations confirm a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the terminal window remains open, which is exactly the fact an agent needs to distinguish disconnect from teardown. It omits whether the connection can be re-established and what happens to in-flight work.

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 action front-loaded and the persistence side-effect immediately after. Every word carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema control operation, the description covers what it does and what survives. The remaining gap is reconnectability and any lost state, which matters modestly given neighbors like use_terminal and add_terminal exist.

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 to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 concrete verb+resource: dropping the Python API connection, with the added distinction that the terminal window persists. That separates it from remove_terminal or launch_terminal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with use_terminal or terminal_status.

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: you call this when you want to sever the API link without closing the terminal. No explicit when/when-not guidance and no sibling named as the alternative for closing the terminal outright or reconnecting afterward.

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