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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool creates a permission, returns a summary, and costs 10 tokens, and it clarifies the prerequisite call. However, it omits details about permissions required, potential conflicts, or error behavior. It adds some value but lacks rich behavioral 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 three short, focused sentences plus a cost line. The purpose is stated first, followed by prerequisite and targeting instructions, then the return value and cost. Every sentence earns its place, and there is zero waste.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, prerequisite, connection targeting, return value, and cost. It doesn't enumerate output fields, but that is covered by the output schema. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention edge cases or authorization requirements.

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 repeats the clerk_instance_id guidance already present in the schema ('from clerk.get_connected_accounts. Omit to use the default...'), adding no new semantic meaning. It also does not elaborate on name, key, or description beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. Thus the description adds minimal parameter semantics 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new organization permission in a connected Clerk application.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_organization_role or create_organization, as it targets 'organization permission' specifically. It is precise and 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 usage context by instructing to call clerk.get_connected_accounts first and how to target a connection via clerk_instance_id. It also explains the fallback to the default account. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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