Disconnect device

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing a persistent side effect not derivable from annotations: "With host the address is also forgotten and not reconnected at start." It does not describe the response/error surface, but the key state consequence is surfaced.

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?

Four short sentences, the primary purpose and its sibling relationship front-loaded, then omit-host behavior, then the recovery workflow, then the host-persistence caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

With one optional parameter, full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema to explain, the description supplies nearly everything an agent needs. The only minor gap is the absence of any statement about failure modes (e.g. disconnecting a host that is not connected).

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the persistence consequence of passing host (address forgotten, not reconnected at start) rather than only the omit-all behavior the schema states.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ("Disconnect a network ADB device") and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling adb_connect by calling itself "the reverse of adb_connect." An agent can distinguish it from the other 17 adb_* siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: "adb_disconnect then adb_connect recovers a device that adb_devices lists as offline" tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right first step. It also states the omit-host case. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative for other disconnect scenarios.

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