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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful scope: the operation removes a specific provider's connection from the MCP session, not the entire session or all providers. It also clarifies that omitting mcp_session_id safely binds to the current transport, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler: it front-loads the main action and target, then states the required parameter and the optional session behavior. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter destructive logout operation with full schema coverage and destructive annotations, the description provides sufficient context: target, scope, required parameter, and session fallback. It would be more complete if it explicitly directed agents to logout_all for the all-providers case, but that gap is not severe.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description mostly restates what the schema says about provider values and mcp_session_id fallback; it adds no new parameter mechanics or format details beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb ('연결을 해제합니다', disconnects) with a specific resource: a named provider connection within an MCP session, and enumerates the valid provider values (SAINT, LMS, LIBRARY). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling logout_all, which applies to all providers.

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 implies usage by saying a provider is required and explaining the mcp_session_id fallback behavior, so an agent can infer 'use this to disconnect one specific provider.' However, it never explicitly names logout_all as the alternative for logging out of all providers, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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