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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value ('Returns the updated enterprise_connection summary') and a prerequisite, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing configs), permission requirements, or reversibility. Adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, targeting, return value, and cost. No filler 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 12 parameters with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level context: what the tool does, how to select the instance, and what it returns. It could be more explicit about partial update behavior, but the schema already implies it via null defaults.

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 description's only param-related note (pass or omit clerk_instance_id) is already present in the schema's description for that parameter, adding no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Update an enterprise SSO connection in a connected Clerk application,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_enterprise_connection, get_enterprise_connection, and delete_enterprise_connection.

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?

It instructs to 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first' and explains how to target a specific connection via clerk_instance_id or use the default account. This provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like create or delete.

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