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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by clarifying the exact blast radius: nothing is signed out, no Local MCP credential exists, and the Notion app stays signed in on the computer. It also discloses the irreversibility-without-manual-UI constraint, which is precisely the context an agent needs before a destructive action.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the effect, then the re-enable route, then the 'nothing is signed out' clarification. The UI path detail is verbose but functionally necessary and no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; the description covers the mutation, its limits, and the recovery path. For a zero-required-parameter destructive toggle, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (account, confirm) are already documented in the schema, including the note that confirm is ignored. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

States a specific verb and scope: 'Turns Notion off in Local MCP' and immediately gives the observable effect ('its tools stop reading it'). This clearly separates it from the read-oriented notion_* siblings like notion_search and notion_list_pages.

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 the reversal path in detail (LMCP icon → My apps → app row → Read · Send · Write) and warns 'No tool turns it back on,' which is the key decision factor before calling. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over simply not calling Notion tools, but the operational context is clear.

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