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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating nature ('Delete (unlink)'), the return behavior ('Returns the deleted external account'), and a cost of 8 tokens. It does not mention permissions or irreversibility, but the 'unlink' phrasing implies the action is reversible.

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: purpose, prerequisite, parameter guidance, and return value plus cost. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 full schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary workflow, return behavior, and cost. It could mention error handling or side effects, but for a straightforward unlink operation, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of operational nuance by explaining that clerk_instance_id comes from clerk.get_connected_accounts and that omitting it selects the default account, but this largely repeats the schema's own text.

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 explicitly states 'Delete (unlink) an external OAuth or social account from a Clerk user,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete other user resources like phone numbers or web3 wallets.

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 gives clear prerequisite guidance: '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. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives for other deletion contexts, but the workflow is unambiguous.

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