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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that client_secret may be present and should not be logged, that a prior call to get_connected_accounts is required, that omitting clerk_instance_id uses the default account, and that it returns an OAuth application summary. It also states the token cost. This goes beyond the schema and provides valuable safety and operational context.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then provides a security warning, a prerequisite, and the return value. Every sentence adds meaningful information and is structured logically.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisite, security, return value, and cost. It doesn't discuss error conditions or specific parameter combinations, but the high schema coverage and output schema mitigate the need. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the clerk_instance_id parameter behavior ('Pass clerk_instance_id to target a specific connection, or omit it to use the default account') and by noting that client_secret may be present for confidential clients, which relates to the 'public' parameter. These insights complement the schema descriptions and aid the agent in parameter selection.

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: 'Create a new OAuth application in a connected Clerk application (Clerk as IdP)'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools like create_api_key or create_user. The mention of 'connected Clerk application' adds context that uniquely identifies this tool's purpose.

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 guidance: 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first' and explains how to target a specific connection via clerk_instance_id or use the default. It also warns about sensitive data handling. While it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use, the clear prerequisite and operational instructions give strong context for when this tool should be invoked.

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