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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that the address is derived from org/project slugs and is not configurable, that re-enabling an already-on server returns the same address (the practical meaning of idempotentHint), and that project Admin permission is required. These are non-obvious operational facts an agent needs.

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-loads the action and its outcome, then covers idempotency, prerequisites, UI mirror, and permission. Mostly earns its sentences, though 'which is derived from the organization and project slugs, so there is nothing to choose' is slightly wordier than needed.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return (the server address and its derivation). Combined with permission and sign-in prerequisites, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 already explains the slug format and the omit-when-single-project rule. The description only adds that the address derives from organization + project slugs, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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 ('Turns a project's end-user MCP server on') and even names the return value (the server address). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_mcp_server (read) and create_mcp_access_link (prerequisite step).

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: nobody can sign in until the project has a login connection or an access link from create_mcp_access_link, and notes project Admin is required. It points at the alternative tool for the prerequisite case, but does not explicitly say when to prefer other server-management tools.

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