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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds real context beyond that: the effect is scoped to Local MCP tooling, the Google Drive sync app remains signed in, re-enabling requires a manual UI path (icon → My apps → app row → Read · Send · Write), and 'No tool turns it back on'. That last point is critical information an agent cannot get from any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect, then the recovery path, then the parameter rule. It is a dense single block and the re-enable navigation path is verbose, but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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?

A destructive, irreversible-from-tooling perspective action with an output schema available. The description covers effect, non-effect (no sign-out), parameter sourcing, and the absence of a reversal tool — nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema alone does not: `account` must be the folder's name as returned by gdrive_root, and the conditional requirement is restated in prose. The `confirm` parameter's no-op status is already in the schema, so it is fairly left unmentioned.

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 with scope: 'Turns one Google Drive folder off in Local MCP', and immediately narrows what that means ('its tools stop reading it'). It also preempts confusion with the many other disconnect_* siblings by clarifying this is not a sign-out of Google Drive.

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?

Explains when to supply `account` (omitted with one folder, required with several) and states the important exclusion that nothing is signed out because Local MCP holds no Google Drive credentials. It does not name a sibling alternative for account-level sign-out, but the 'this is not a sign-out' framing effectively routes the agent away from the wrong mental model.

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