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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key side effect beyond the annotations — that disabling also removes the toolset's tools — which an agent could not learn from the schema. It stops short of saying whether the change is reversible (e.g., via enable_toolset) or whether any tools are lost permanently.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb+resource, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema mutation whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the description supplies what is missing: the removal side effect. Nothing essential to calling it correctly appears to be absent.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Toolset name'), so the schema already carries the load. The phrase 'by name' merely restates the schema and adds no syntax, format, or resolution detail beyond it.

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 (disable) and resource (toolset) and adds the consequence 'remove its tools', which is more informative than the bare name. The verb makes it clearly distinct from the sibling enable_toolset, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the name and the existence of enable_toolset let an agent infer this is the inverse operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or stated alternative. Adequate minimum-viable guidance, nothing more.

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