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 core action and return value ('Returns the updated user object') plus cost, but does not mention potential side effects such as irreversibility, user notification, or whether re-enabling is possible. It is transparent about the main effect but lacks deeper 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by essential usage instruction, return value, and cost. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisite, parameter targeting, and return value. It is largely complete, though it could mention the irreversible/destructive nature of disabling all MFA methods, especially since there are no annotations.

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 repeats what the schema already states ('Pass clerk_instance_id to target a specific connection, or omit it to use the default account') without adding meaningful new semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Disable all MFA methods (SMS, TOTP, and similar) for a Clerk user at once.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling per-method tools like clerk.delete_user_totp and clerk.delete_user_backup_codes by emphasizing the broad, all-at-once scope.

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?

It provides explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first' and explains the clerk_instance_id behavior with specific targeting or default usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., per-method disable tools) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls 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.