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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotence, non-destructiveness and open-world access, so the description's burden is lighter. However it says nothing an agent needs for safe invocation: whether omitted fields are left untouched (partial update), whether passing null on logo/websiteUrl clears them, or what permissions are required. For a 6-parameter mutation this is a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and changed fields come first. It is efficient but arguably too terse for the behavioral surface it needs to cover.

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?

With six parameters, 17% schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation annotation profile, the description should cover partial-update behavior and permission requirements. It only names fields, leaving an agent unable to predict the effect of the call with confidence.

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 only 17% (just clientId), so the description must compensate. It enumerates name, purpose, redirect URI, logo and website, but this merely restates property names without adding format, optionality clarity, or null-clearing semantics for the nullable logo and websiteUrl fields.

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 ("Change") plus the resource ("OAuth app") and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what it edits. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as delete_oauth_client or submit_oauth_client_for_review, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. ownership of the app), and no mention of the submit-for-review workflow that logically follows. The only routing hint, clientId coming from list_oauth_clients, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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