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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return ('Returns a deleted confirmation') and cost, but doesn't mention idempotency, error handling, or permission requirements. The deletion operation is simple, but a bit more behavioral context would be helpful; this is minimum viable.

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 four short sentences, with the primary action first, then usage guidance, return type, and cost. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff, making it highly readable and easily scannable.

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 simplicity (two params, both with schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It adds the prerequisite call and cost information. A 4 is warranted because it's thorough enough for a straightforward delete operation, though it doesn't discuss error cases.

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 baseline is 3. The added 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first' is a helpful prerequisite, but the description mostly repeats the schema's own language about clerk_instance_id. It doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, so 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove a blocklist identifier by id,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like clerk.create_blocklist_identifier and clerk.delete_allowlist_identifier by naming the blocklist identifier as the target.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first,' and explains when to pass or omit clerk_instance_id. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like delete_allowlist_identifier, but the context makes the use case obvious. Clear context without exclusions earns a 4.

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