rp_rx_disconnect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state irreversibly. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the server resets RX tuning/rate and TX sockets are untouched, bounding the blast radius. It does not cover what happens if no owned socket exists or whether repeated calls error.

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, followed by the side-effect clarification. No filler or 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 tear-down tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential unknowns: what is closed, what side effect occurs server-side, and what is deliberately not touched. Only error/idempotency edge cases are left unaddressed, and idempotency is already in the annotations.

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 the schema-completeness baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description correctly implies the target set is implicit (owned RX sockets).

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: "Close owned RX sockets," which is clearly distinct from the sibling rp_rx_connect and clarifies that only sockets this client owns are affected. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, but the action and scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as rp_rx_connect or rp_rx_read, nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., must a socket be open first?). The word "owned" hints at a validity constraint but is not expanded into usable guidance.

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