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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: it disconnects the pairing and is reversible 'until re-enabled', which helps an agent understand the scope of the mutation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition and followed by the effect and requirement. The opening clause is slightly awkward ('Use this when... only when...'), but there is little waste.

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 mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers when to use it, the reversal condition, and the required input. No essential gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, device, already includes a description pointing to list_devices. The description's 'requires its device id' merely restates the required parameter and adds no new syntax or semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (disable) and resource (paired computer) and clarifies the effect (disconnects the pairing until re-enabled), which implicitly separates it from enable_device/remove_device. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or state the permanent-removal alternative, so it falls short of 5.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user needs to disable an existing paired computer') and an exclusion ('only when the user explicitly requests it'), so an agent knows not to call it proactively. It does not name alternatives such as remove_device for permanent unpairing, preventing a 5.

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