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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It identifies the tool as a mutating update, explains the prerequisite and default-account behavior, states that it returns updated restrictions, and includes a token cost. It does not discuss permissions or failure modes, but the provided context is solid 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 concise: three short paragraphs with a clear lead sentence stating the purpose, followed by operational details and return behavior. Every sentence contributes value, and the cost notice is a useful addition without bloating the text.

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 core action, prerequisite, instance selection, and return value. An output schema exists and parameter details are in the schema. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that only provided fields are updated (though defaults imply optionality), but overall the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already describes all six parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond reinforcing the clerk_instance_id behavior already present in the schema. No new meaning is added to other parameters.

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 a specific verb-action ('Update sign-up and sign-in restriction settings') against a clear resource ('a connected Clerk instance'). It distinguishes from sibling update_instance_* tools by focusing on restrictions, making its 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 clear operational guidance: call 'clerk.get_connected_accounts' first and either pass 'clerk_instance_id' or omit it for the default account. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other update_instance_* alternatives, so it stops short of full alternative differentiation.

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