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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('updating authentication configuration') but does not mention required permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens to existing settings. The lack of such context is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. The parameter list is necessary given the tool's complexity, though it partially duplicates schema information. Overall, it is efficient and does not waste words.

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 eight parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., whether an SSO credential must be added first), the nature of the 'social login activation result,' or any side effects. The presence of an output schema is acknowledged, but the description fails to leverage it or add essential context.

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?

The description lists all eight parameters with defaults, which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, most of this is a direct duplication of the schema's own defaults and types. It does add one meaningful detail: that project_key uses the global tenant_id if not provided, which is useful semantic context beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('social login for the project'), and adds the scoping detail 'by updating authentication configuration.' This distinguishes it from other configuration tools and makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like enable_authenticator_mfa or add_sso_credential. The description only defines what the tool does, not the context in which it should be selected, and there are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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