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 return value ('Returns the updated template summary') and cost, and the word 'Update' implies mutation. However, it does not explain whether the update is a patch or full replacement, any side effects on existing claims/signing keys, or permission requirements beyond the prerequisite 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 three concise sentences plus a cost note. It front-loads purpose, then gives a critical prerequisite, return value, and cost—each sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters (1 required) and related create/get/delete siblings. The description covers the prerequisite, target selection, and return value, but omits update semantics (e.g., partial vs full update) and does not reference the output schema. Given the mutation nature and lack of annotations, more context would be needed for a complete picture.

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 describes all 9 parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by instructing to call get_connected_accounts first and clarifying the clerk_instance_id targeting behavior, but this largely mirrors the schema and does not compensate for any gaps.

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 'Update an existing JWT template in a connected Clerk application,' clearly stating the verb and resource. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete JWT template siblings, making the purpose 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?

It provides a clear prerequisite ('Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first') and explains how to select a specific connection via clerk_instance_id or fall back to the default. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for a typical update flow.

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