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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite call, the ability to target specific connections, and that it returns updated settings, plus a cost note. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether the update is reversible, which would be valuable for an update tool.

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—four short sentences, each adding value: the core action, a prerequisite, a targeting rule, and a return/cost note. No filler words or redundant content. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The description covers the essential context: prerequisite, targeting options, and return value. With an output schema present (though not shown), it doesn't need to enumerate return fields. It could be more thorough about side effects or permissions, but given the tool's simple scope (3 optional booleans), this is largely 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 coverage is 100%, and the description repeats some of the schema's information about `clerk_instance_id` (e.g., 'omit it to use the default account'). It does not add meaningful interpretation beyond the schema for the boolean parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents all parameters adequately.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Update OAuth settings for a connected Clerk instance.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `clerk.get_instance_oauth_settings` (read-only) and `clerk.update_instance_settings` (broader scope). The phrasing makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 prerequisites: 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first' and explains how to target a connection vs. using the default account. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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