notion_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the load. It does disclose two useful traits: the change is reversible and re-enabled from LMCP's icon, and existing Notion tools remain but stop reading data. However, the sentence is cut off mid-clause, so any further behavioral detail (auth impact, whether in-flight calls fail) is lost.

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-loaded and short, which is right for a toggle, but the trailing ellipsis means the definition is literally incomplete. Conciseness shouldn't come at the cost of a truncated sentence.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It covers the core reversible-toggle semantics but is truncated and silent on what the caller gets back or what happens to Notion tool availability meanwhile.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool 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?

States a specific action on a specific resource: turning Notion off within Local MCP, and clarifies the effect (its tools stop reading Notion). That distinguishes it from a credential disconnect like gdrive_disconnect or slack_disconnect, which remove account linkage; here the connection is only 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?

Usage is implied – the agent should call it when the user wants Notion tooling silenced – and the re-enable path is named (LMCP icon). But it never says when NOT to use it or contrasts with alternatives such as disconnecting the Notion workspace account entirely.

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