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

Annotations already mark the tool as potentially destructive, and the description goes further by naming the specific destructive actions: api-key-delete, oauth-revoke, and oauth-revoke-all. This is valuable context beyond the annotation. However, it does not describe side effects like session invalidation or credential revocation details, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 two sentences with no filler: it states the domain, lists operation categories, points to the self-describing describe action, and flags destructive operations. The most important usage instructions are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 23 parameters, 29 actions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete on its own but compensates by directing the agent to action='describe' for the complete reference. It also covers the key risk factor (destructive actions). The absence of output/return-value information is a minor gap, but the describe mechanism reduces the impact.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description itself does not add much new parameter-level meaning beyond directing the agent to action='describe' for per-action parameter details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 identifies the tool's domain as authentication and sessions, and enumerates the main operation families: signin, signup, signout, 2FA, PKCE, API keys, and OAuth sessions. While it lacks a single imperative verb like 'manage', it is not a tautology and is clearly distinct from the non-auth sibling tools. The action='describe' pointer also clarifies that this is an action-dispatching tool rather than a simple resource tool.

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 gives concrete usage guidance by telling the agent to call action='describe' for the full action/parameter reference, which is essential for a 29-action tool. It also flags which actions are destructive, helping the agent choose appropriately. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the auth/session domain and sibling list make the boundary reasonably clear.

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