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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, non-idempotent, non-readOnly, but the description adds real context beyond them: delete blocks new authorizations while existing access tokens remain revocable as API keys, and the two-step preview_id confirmation sequence is spelled out. These are behaviors an agent could not derive from the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then organized action-by-action, with the trickiest flow (delete preview) left for last. It is dense and runs long, but nearly every clause carries actionable constraint rather than restating the schema.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only hint-level annotations, the description covers the confirmation gating, the preview flow, and delete's downstream effect on authorizations. It leaves the role of incidental fields (homepage, is_active, description) and any expected return shape unaddressed, so a small gap remains.

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 70% and several params (homepage, is_active, description) have no schema descriptions, but the description compensates by binding the key params to their actions: client_name/allowed_redirect_uris/default_scopes for create, client_id plus changed fields for update, client_id for delete, and preview_id semantics for delete. It stops short of explaining homepage, is_active, or description, so it is not fully compensating.

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+resource ('Manage self-serve OAuth 2.1 + PKCE developer clients') and immediately scopes it (public clients, no client secret). It also names the sibling list_oauth_clients for the read path, so an agent can separate this mutating tool from the listing tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives per-action when-to-use rules: create requires client_name/allowed_redirect_uris/default_scopes with confirm only after user confirmation; update takes client_id plus changed fields; delete takes client_id and uses a preview-then-confirm flow. The user-confirmation prerequisites and the alternative (list_oauth_clients) are explicit rather than inferred.

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