Leave the Playground

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it releases the in-memory link/source and leaves other editors and the room intact until expiry, which tells the agent what is and is not affected.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scoping consequence. Every clause adds useful information with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter disconnect tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It explains the effect on the participant, other editors, and the room; only minor details like reconnection behavior are left unstated.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed, and the description does not waste space on nonexistent inputs.

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: 'Disconnect the MCP participant and release its in-memory link/source.' It also clarifies the scope by stating that 'Other editors and the room remain open,' which implicitly distinguishes it from crabrix_end_room.

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 makes clear this is the leave-without-closing option: the room and other editors stay open until normal expiry. That implies when to use it versus crabrix_end_room, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state exclusions.

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