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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the effect (removing access) and that it returns a deletion confirmation, but it does not mention whether the action is irreversible, what side effects occur, or any authentication requirements. For a delete command, this is adequate but not fully transparent about consequences.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the action, the prerequisite, the optional parameter behavior, and the return type. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the return object. It covers the prerequisite, parameter selection, and the outcome (deletion confirmation). It lacks mention of error conditions or edge cases, but for a straightforward delete operation this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, giving baseline 3. The description adds valuable guidance beyond the schema, particularly about calling clerk.get_connected_accounts first and how to use clerk_instance_id to target a specific connection or omit it for the default. This clarifies the exact use of parameters beyond their raw definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete a machine scope, removing access from one machine to another.' This uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (machine scope), and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_machine (deletes the machine itself) and create_machine_scope (creates a scope).

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 explicit usage context: 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first' and explains how to select an instance with clerk_instance_id or omit it for the default account. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools for similar operations, but the primary usage guidance is clear and actionable.

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