Disconnect from MSFS

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, which implies a mutating but safe operation. The description adds no extra context like 'subsequent connection-dependent tools will fail until reconnected' or 'this aborts ongoing operations.' While not contradicting annotations, it fails to disclose the operational impact of closing the connection beyond the literal action.

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?

A single, precise sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and immediately clear. Every word earns its place; nothing is redundant or confusing.

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, single-action tool, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement about side effects (e.g., affecting other tools) or return behavior, but the output schema exists and annotations cover safety. Given the simplicity, the gap is minor and a 4 is appropriate.

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 zero parameters, the schema trivially covers everything. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Baseline of 4 applies per guidelines—the tool is inherently simple and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Close') and a precise resource ('the SimConnect connection to MSFS'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like msfs_connect (the counterpart) and status tools. The agent knows exactly what action this performs.

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 context is clear: this is the disconnect counterpart to msfs_connect. Though it doesn't explicitly list when to use it vs alternatives, the pairing with msfs_connect and the absence of any other disconnect tool make the usage obvious. Minor gap: no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must be connected first).

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