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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful consequence that disabled tools free space in client tool lists, but says nothing about persistence, whether other clients or sessions are affected immediately, or what the response contains.

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 with no waste; the action is front-loaded and the rationale follows immediately. Nothing in the text repeats the title verbatim without adding information.

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 three-parameter boolean toggle with full schema coverage, no output schema, and idempotence declared in annotations, the description covers the action and its practical benefit. Only the effect scope (immediate vs. next session, other clients) is left unstated, a minor gap.

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%, and the schema documents all three parameters including the note that `tool` is the remote name without prefix and that `enabled` is true/false. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, 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+resource: switching a single tool on a connected server on or off, which is clearly distinct from siblings like connection_tools (listing) and connection_tool_schema (inspecting). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

The second sentence implies the motivation for use (an off tool consumes no space in a client's tool list), which hints at when to disable. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as connection_tools for inspecting what is available before toggling.

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