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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing effects. It clearly states the destructive action (deletes backup codes) and the return value ('Returns the updated user object'). However, it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or the impact on the user's MFA setup beyond backup codes. No annotation contradiction exists.

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, each serving a purpose: action, prerequisite, parameter usage, and return value. The cost note is extra but acceptable. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not elaborate on the return structure. It covers the purpose, prerequisites, parameter disambiguation, and outcome. It omits potential side effects or alternatives, but for a deletion tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning by instructing to call clerk.get_connected_accounts first and by clarifying when to pass clerk_instance_id (specific connection) versus omit (default). This augments the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Delete all MFA backup codes for a Clerk user.' It clearly identifies the exact operation and scope ('all', 'for a Clerk user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_user_totp or delete_user_passkey.

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 prerequisite context: 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first' and explains how to choose the instance: 'Pass clerk_instance_id to target a specific connection, or omit it to use the default account.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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