authentication_settings_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the mutation ("Create"), the authorization requirement (Instance Administrator), and the required input modes. It doesn't describe response shapes or side effects on existing authentication flows, but it provides far more behavioral context than a minimal description.

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 repeats the exact same sentence as both a title and the first paragraph, which is unnecessary redundancy. The example request body is large but useful for a nested structure. The overall structure is logical, but the duplication prevents a higher score.

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 complex create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, permissions, and input constraints well. However, it doesn't describe what the response/return value looks like or mention potential failure/error cases, leaving some uncertainty for an agent invoking the tool. This is a meaningful gap given the lack of structured output information.

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 schema's nested properties already describe most fields in detail, so the description only needs to add semantics beyond that. It does so by giving a complete example request body and, more importantly, stating the otherwise undocumented either/or constraint between metadata_url and the idp_sso_url/idp_issuer/idp_certificate group. This adds real value over the raw 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 opens with a specific verb+resource phrase: "Create authentication settings for IdP SSO or metadata URL." This clearly identifies the action and resource, and the "create" framing distinguishes it from the sibling tools authentication_settings_update, authentication_settings_delete, and authentication_settings_get_settings.

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 explicit usage context: it states the required field combination (either metadata_url or all of idp_sso_url, idp_issuer, and idp_certificate) and the required Instance Administrator permission. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like authentication_settings_update, but it's clear this tool is for creation, not modification, so the usage context is solid.

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