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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that the operation is audit-trailed, that Mercury has no token-revoke API, and that the tool only disables the integration rather than fully revoking access. This gives an agent a realistic model of the operation's side effects and limits.

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 sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by stating an important limitation. Every word contributes to correct usage.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple two-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and only one annotation. It covers the critical caveat and side effects, though it stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from sibling disconnect tools.

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 both parameters already carry rich descriptions explaining defaults, validation, and when to omit them. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Disables the org's Mercury integration', which clearly identifies what the tool does and separates it from sibling tools like disconnect_meow by naming Mercury explicitly. The caveat about token revocation further clarifies the scope without obscuring the primary action.

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 description implies the tool is used when the org wants to disable its Mercury integration, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as disconnect_meow or state when not to use it. The token-revocation caveat provides important context, but selection guidance is left mostly to inference from the tool name.

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