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

Annotations already indicate the tool is destructive and not read-only. The description adds a key behavioral detail: revoking the current application terminates the MCP connection, which is crucial beyond what annotations convey. However, it doesn't disclose other potential side effects or permission requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical warning. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only missing piece is parameter guidance, but the warning about the current application is well-covered.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter client_id. The description does not mention the parameter or explain what value to supply, leaving the agent to infer that client_id identifies the application to revoke. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Disconnect') and resource ('authorized application'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_authorized_apps. An agent can immediately understand the tool's core action.

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 description provides a critical usage warning: 'Revoking the current application ends this MCP connection.' This gives context about when not to use it (for the current app) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or outline other usage scenarios.

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