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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates fields and returns an updated domain summary, and notes a Cost of 8 tokens. However, it gives no details about side effects, permissions, or consequences of changing verification status, leaving significant behavioral context undisclosed.

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 line. The purpose is stated first, followed by a prerequisite and return behavior, with zero filler or redundancy.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it updates, the prerequisite call, and the return value. It omits details about default behavior when only domain_id is provided, but the structured data fills most gaps.

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 fully documents all four parameters including formats and options. The description adds no new parameter meaning; its note about clerk_instance_id merely echoes the schema description.

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 'Update' and names the resource 'organization domain' with the two updatable aspects: 'enrollment mode or verification status'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_organization_domain, delete_organization_domain, and verify_organization_domain_ownership.

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 explicitly instructs 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. This provides clear prerequisite and conditional guidance, though it doesn't mention alternative tools for similar updates.

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