disconnect_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does reveal two concrete effects: heartbeat termination and release of the BLE link held by MCP. It does not say what happens if no connection exists, whether the call is idempotent, or whether it is reversible without re-running connect_device.

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 short sentence that front-loads the primary effect and adds the heartbeat detail without waste. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and a zero-parameter tool needs little input detail. However, the relationship to the sibling stop_device and connect_device (ordering, error state) is left unaddressed, which is the main thing an agent needs to sequence calls correctly.

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 has nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to identify the target.

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 and resource: stop the heartbeat and disconnect the BLE connection held by MCP. It is clear this tears down a connection rather than driving the device, which separates it from setters like set_vibration. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with stop_device, which could also plausibly stop activity.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it is finished with a device, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over stop_device or whether it must be called before reconnecting. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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