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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a permanent deletion, states the action's return value ('Returns the deleted OAuth application object'), and notes the token cost. This goes beyond a bare 'delete' statement and helps the agent understand the irreversible and returning nature of the call.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds useful information: the operation, prerequisite and targeting instructions, return value, and cost. No filler or repetition of schema details, making it efficiently structured.

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?

For a destructive delete tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: prerequisite call, targeting selector, return value, and cost. It does not detail error scenarios or explicit authorization requirements, but the permanent-deletion warning and return behavior are sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., clerk_instance_id has default null and explanation, oauth_application_id is required with 'oa_...' format). The description adds minimal new semantics beyond restating the targeting behavior already present in the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Permanently delete an OAuth application from a connected Clerk application,' which uses a specific verb ('delete'), specifies the resource ('OAuth application'), and adds 'permanently' to convey irreversibility. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update, get, list, or create OAuth applications.

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: it tells the agent to call clerk.get_connected_accounts first and explains how to target a specific connection via clerk_instance_id or fall back to the default account. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the instructions give actionable prerequisites and targeting guidance.

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