Disconnect relay session

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description adds valuable extra context about what exactly gets destroyed: 'the relay session and all cached pairing state.' It also discloses the broad side effect of emergency-stopping every device, which is meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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 sentence with a clear before/after sequence: emergency-stop first, then destroy session and pairing state. Every part adds information, and the most safety-critical action is front-loaded.

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 destructive disconnection tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the scope, the sequence, and the collateral effects. The only minor gap is explicit routing versus emergency_stop, which is more of a usage-guidelines nuance than a completeness 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?

The tool has no parameters and the schema has 100% coverage with an empty properties object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than non-existent parameters.

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?

The description uses a specific verb plus resource: it 'emergency-stop every device, then destroy the relay session and all cached pairing state.' This goes beyond the title by detailing the exact sequence and side effects, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like dglab_emergency_stop, which likely only stops stimulation without destroying the session or pairing.

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 implied rather than explicitly stated: the description strongly suggests this is the full teardown tool for disconnecting and clearing pairing state. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over dglab_emergency_stop or dglab_stop_channel, nor does it warn against using it when only a temporary stop is needed.

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