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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing secret handling ('sealed and never returned') and the token consequence of replacement (members keep tokens, but a token issued to the old client may require reconnect). This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey, and it is consistent with idempotentHint.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each earning its place: purpose, secret-handling behavior, and replacement/migration consequence. No filler or repetition of schema facts.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential concerns an agent needs: what it stores, the DCR precondition, secret confidentiality, and the token impact of replacement. Annotations carry the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing.

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, but the description adds meaning about client_secret behavior ('the secret is sealed and never returned'), which clarifies the write-only nature of that parameter. The other parameters (server_slug, scope, client_id) are already well documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Store the OAuth client ... on a member-held oauth scope') tied to a concrete use case (member sign-in). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_gateway_scope_headers and disconnect_gateway_scope, which act on the same scope object. The only minor gap is that the verb 'store' is slightly softer than a canonical 'set/configure'.

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?

Provides a clear selecting condition: it applies 'for an authorization server that offers no dynamic client registration,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g. set_gateway_scope_headers) or state when-not-to-use, but the precondition is a strong contextual filter.

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