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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description clears a lower bar and it does add genuine value beyond them: activation is deferred to the next tool call and the client's tool list may show a stale set until reconnect. That staleness caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise trip over. It stops short of stating persistence scope (session vs. permanent) or what happens with an invalid slug.

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 short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the timing caveat second. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded or redundant.

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, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it and interpret the delayed effect. The remaining gap is error/failure behavior for an unknown or unavailable slug, which is modest but real.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'slug' parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description owes nothing here. It adds no format, discovery, or validation detail about the slug (e.g., where to get valid values), which keeps it at the baseline rather than above it.

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 precise verb and object ('Attach a tool to your session') and states the immediate outcome ('becomes available'). It is clearly distinguishable from tools_detach and tools_list_available by name semantics alone, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 stated: an agent can infer you call tools_list_available first, then attach a slug. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use this if...' guidance, and no mention of the detach counterpart for reversing the action.

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