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

Annotations show this is a non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds value by explaining the effect (tools hidden from active list, connector persists, appears as Paused in get_connector_status). One minor gap: doesn't mention if there are side effects on user sessions or whether disabling takes effect immediately for all agents.

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 dense sentences, each adding distinct value: first states the primary action, second gives usage cues and examples, third clarifies state persistence. Zero filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, state persistence, and relation to sibling tools. No output schema is needed since the tool is typically a fire-and-forget toggle. The tool is simple and the description is thorough.

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 has 100% coverage with a single required parameter connector_id and provides explicit examples. The description doesn't add parameter-level details beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage the baseline is 3. The description earns a 4 by linking the parameter to the usage examples ('disable Shopify' implies connector_id='shopify'), which adds practical context.

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 clearly states the tool hides a connector's tools from the active tool list for the current user. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling enable_connector by mentioning the reverse operation, and from get_connector_status by noting disabled connectors still appear there as 'Paused'.

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 explicitly says to use when the user says they don't use a service or wants to pause a connector, and gives concrete examples like 'disable Shopify' or 'hide TikTok'. It also states the connector remains configured and can be restored with enable_connector, providing clear when-not-to-use context.

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