End the room for everyone

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real blast-radius detail: all participants lose relay access, while saved device copies persist. The ownership caveat is extra behavioral context that no annotation supplies.

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?

Three short sentences, with the precondition front-loaded before the consequence and the ownership caveat. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or 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 no-param, no-output destructive action, the agent gets the trigger condition, the scope of impact, what survives the action, and the ownership requirement. No output schema is needed since there is no return value to document.

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?

Zero parameters with additionalProperties:false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly makes no param claims.

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 specific verb+resource ('close a temporary room created by this bridge in this connection') and a scope qualifier ('for everyone'). This clearly separates it from siblings like crabrix_disconnect, which presumably affects only the caller's own connection.

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?

Gives an explicit gate ('Only when the user explicitly asks') and a negative ownership condition ('an ordinary shared link does not grant this tool ownership'). It stops short of naming crabrix_disconnect as the alternative for a caller who merely wants to leave, leaving that inference to the agent.

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