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

Annotations only give generic hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the blast radius ('withdraws the server's tools from every agent run'), the immediacy of the effect, the reversibility of enabling, and the fact that existing grants and the allow-list still govern restored access. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an unknown server or whether the change needs confirmation, so a 5 is not warranted.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the permission gate, then the operational consequence. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter toggle with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers effect, scope, permission prerequisite, and reversibility. Only minor edge behavior (e.g. what happens for an unregistered server name) is left unstated.

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% – both parameters are documented in the schema, including that 'server' accepts a name or id and that 'enabled' is a boolean switch. The description adds only the direction semantics (enable vs. disable) already implied by the name, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb pair (enable/disable) plus a precise resource (a registered MCP tool server), so it is unmistakable against siblings such as register_mcp_server, grant_mcp_tool, and list_mcp_servers. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

It states the audience constraint clearly ('Organisation admins only'), which gates when the tool is even usable. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. register_mcp_server to create, grant_mcp_tool to authorize), but the note about grants and the allow-list still applying implicitly frames the boundary between toggling and authorizing.

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