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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and discloses key non-obvious traits: the secret is returned only once, it requires a signed-in session, and signing in through the client does not pin users to a workspace. It omits failure modes and any rate/limit behavior, but the one-time-secret warning is the critical fact.

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?

Front-loads the authentication constraint, then the action, then the caveat, in three tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does note what is returned (the secret, once) and the workspace-selection behavior. For a 2-parameter, no-annotation mutation tool this is largely sufficient, though return-shape detail and parameter detail remain thin.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It partially does via the example redirect URI, but the 'name' parameter is never explained and there is no guidance on the redirectUris array (count limits, format expectations), leaving half the surface undocumented.

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?

Specific verb (create) plus resource (OAuth client ID and secret for an assistant) with a concrete example consumer (Gemini Enterprise). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling clients tools (assistants_clients_list, assistants_clients_revoke) without opening their schemas.

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?

States the authentication prerequisite ('Signed-in session only') and gives a concrete use case (an assistant such as Gemini Enterprise that asks for credentials). It does not name exclusions or route to alternatives like assistants_clients_list for reviewing existing clients, so it stops 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.