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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context annotations cannot express: records and history persist in the store, enable_app restores state exactly, re-disabling an already-off app is safe, and a reader connection is not permitted to perform this write.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the use case, and every sentence carries a distinct fact (effect, reversibility, idempotency, authorization). No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, but none is needed: the description covers the effect, the safety and reversibility profile, the idempotency case, and the auth prerequisite. An agent has everything required to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the app enum and workspace parameter are already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the two app names but adds no format, default, or resolution detail beyond what the schema states; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('turn off a built-in app') and enumerates the exact targets (magpie, martin), which matches the enum in the schema. It is clearly separable from its sibling enable_app.

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?

Gives the condition for use ('workspace no longer needs' the app, tools stop being listed), names the inverse alternative (enable_app) and its effect, and states an exclusion ('a reader connection cannot disable an app'). When, when-not, and the alternative are all explicit.

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