Disconnect TCP/IP devices

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: USB is unaffected and the tool is not device-scoped because the address is the serial. It does not describe failure modes (e.g., address not connected), so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the primary single-device behavior is front-loaded, followed by the omission case and the scoping caveat.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers both modes, the scope boundary, and the addressing model. Only error/edge-case behavior on a nonexistent address is absent, a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `address` parameter already documents the 'host:port, omit to disconnect all' semantics, which the description largely restates. The added nuance that the address serves as the serial is mild extra value; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (disconnect) and resource (TCP/IP-connected device) with both the single-device and all-devices forms, plus the underlying `adb disconnect` command. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like `connect` and `wireless_pair` without opening a 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?

Clearly states the two invocation modes (address supplied vs. omitted) and scopes the tool by noting USB connections are unaffected. It does not explicitly name `connect` as the counterpart operation or state error behavior when no matching device exists, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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