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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation (add/save credentials) and notes the project_key fallback and is_enable default, but omits permissions, idempotency, overwrite behavior, or side effects. That's a significant gap for a write operation.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a clear Args list, and a Returns line. It is concise without being terse, though the parameter list takes up several lines. Each line adds value.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and moderate complexity. The description covers most parameters and the return type but lacks usage guidance and omits the audience parameter. It also doesn't address relationships to sibling tools or potential side effects, making it partially complete.

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. It explains 6 of 7 parameters, including defaults, examples for provider, and the project_key fallback. However, it omits the 'audience' parameter entirely, which is notable since it has a default in 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: 'Add social login credentials for OAuth providers' followed by concrete examples (Google, Facebook, GitHub). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like activate_social_login.

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 implies the tool is used to add SSO credentials but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention how this relates to activate_social_login or other auth-related siblings, so usage context is only implicit.

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