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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description clarifies what is actually destroyed: Slack tools stop reading, but Local MCP holds no Slack sign-in, so nothing is signed out and the Slack app stays signed in locally. It also discloses the critical non-reversible-by-tool behavior: 'No tool turns it back on.' This is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive disconnect.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and consequence, then adds only the necessary manual re-enable path and sign-in clarification. Every clause earns its place by preventing misinterpretation of a destructive disconnect.

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 destructive Slack disconnect tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what changes, what does not change, how the user must reverse it, and that no tool can reverse it. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that 'account' is optional because Slack has one account, and that 'confirm' is ignored for older clients. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Turns Slack off in Local MCP,' and immediately states the operational consequence that 'its tools stop reading it.' This clearly distinguishes it from Slack reading/searching siblings like slack_read_channel_messages and slack_search_messages.

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 makes the use case clear: disable Slack access for Local MCP, with the warning that 'No tool turns it back on' and the manual re-enable path. It does not explicitly compare against other disconnect tools, but no sibling Slack disconnect alternative exists, so the guidance is effectively complete for its scope.

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