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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass are changed'), prerequisites (credentials must be saved), specific refusal codes (SIGN_IN_CREDENTIALS_MISSING, LAST_SIGN_IN_METHOD), and what is returned.

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 core action ('Toggle the app's login methods') is front-loaded, and the dense block is mostly non-redundant: each sentence carries either an error condition, a prerequisite, or a routing hint. It is long, but for a 10-param mutation tool little of it is wasted.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description states the return value (updated login-method configuration, same projection as get_auth_config) and covers error conditions, prerequisites, and related tools, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 real meaning beyond the schema: it groups the SSO flags, explains that email+password has no toggle, and attaches the credential prerequisite specifically to the social provider flags.

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 names a specific verb and resource (toggle the app's login/sign-in methods) and enumerates the exact flags being controlled. It clearly distinguishes itself from setup_sso (end-to-end provider config), get_auth_config (read projection), and the CLI/mfa equivalents.

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 states when to use this tool, when to use setup_sso instead ('to configure a provider end-to-end'), and points to get_integration_guide before writing app code. It also names the CLI equivalent so an agent can map its usage.

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