update_client_redirect_uris

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it's a write operation, tagged risk=high, reversible via captured prior list, replaces rather than appends, and supports dry_run for preview. It also contextualizes the risk label as descriptive, not a gate, which is valuable nuance.

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 concise and well-structured: an opening summary with key tags, a behavior/context paragraph, and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds information, and no space is wasted on filler.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, reversibility, security context, parameter semantics, and safe usage pattern (dry_run). It provides all contextual information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does this excellently: client_id is sourced from list_clients, redirect_uris is the complete new list, dry_run previews without changing, and target optionally selects an IdP. This adds semantic value beyond the schema's bare titles/defaults.

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 tool's function: 'REPLACE a client's redirect-URI list'. The verb 'replace' plus the resource 'redirect-URI list' is specific, and the additional detail about replace-not-append and reversibility distinguishes it from any potential sibling operations.

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 clear usage context: it's a high-risk write operation on a security boundary, should be used with the full desired list, and supports dry_run for preview. It also notes that client_id comes from list_clients. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, stopping short of a 5.

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