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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive nature, consequences (invalidates active sessions, brief downtime), and return meaning (whether Clerk accepted the request). It also mentions token cost. This goes beyond basic safety flags and gives the agent critical operational knowledge.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose: purpose, warning, prerequisite/instructions, return value, and cost. No filler or redundant repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, safety warning, prerequisite call, parameter targeting logic, and return semantics. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return structure. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke safely and interpret results.

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 schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds no new parameter details beyond restating the clerk_instance_id guidance already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Change the primary or secondary home URL for a connected Clerk instance.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling domain tools like clerk.update_domain or clerk.add_domain by focusing on the connected instance's home URL.

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 provides clear usage context: it warns that this is destructive, instructs to call clerk.get_connected_accounts first, and explains how to target a specific connection via clerk_instance_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for domain management.

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