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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload and cost, and implies a connection requirement via 'connected Clerk application' and the get_connected_accounts prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state that deletion is irreversible or warn about potential side effects on members or other resources, leaving room for more transparency.

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 short sentences covering purpose, prerequisite, targeting, return value, and cost. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action with no redundant or fluff content.

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 delete tool with one required parameter, high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, prerequisite, targeting, return, and cost. It could add explicit notes on irreversibility or error cases, but given the simplicity, it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both role_id and clerk_instance_id. The description reiterates the omit-to-use-default behavior for clerk_instance_id and adds the get_connected_accounts prerequisite, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 deletes an organization role from a connected Clerk application. The verb 'delete' and resource 'organization role' are specific, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_organization_role or create_organization_role.

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 context by instructing to call clerk.get_connected_accounts first and explains how to target a specific connection via clerk_instance_id or omit it for the default account. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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