lw_ble_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Close and forget' usefully signals that session state is destroyed rather than merely suspended, which is real behavioral value. It says nothing about idempotency, behavior on an invalid/stale connection_id, or effect on other active sessions, so it remains partial.

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 tight sentence with the action and the scoping constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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 explained. But for a state-destroying tool with no annotations, the description omits error/idempotency behavior and any confirmation of what state is cleared, leaving gaps an agent would care about.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. 'Given its connection_id' only ties the parameter to a session handle that already exists; it does not explain the format, where to obtain the ID, or what happens if it is unknown. One undocumented parameter at 0% coverage warrants a low score.

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+resource: 'Close and forget an existing GATT session', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lw_ble_connect and lw_ble_connection_status. However, it does not name or contrast against any alternative tool, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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?

The phrase 'existing GATT session' implies the prerequisite that a connection must already be established, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., vs. lw_ble_connect for teardown of a pending connection). An agent must infer the context.

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