create_client

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation but does not mention effects such as whether creation conflicts with existing client IDs, whether defaults apply, idempotency, or authorization requirements. The schema documents parameter-level behavior, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and does not duplicate information already present in 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?

The schema extensively covers parameter semanticshol, and the description correctly states the operation. However, given the absence of annotations and a missing output schema, the agent is left without explicit usage context, behavioral effects, or return-value expectations. This is adequate for selection but not fully 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 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter thoroughly, including defaults and validation rules. The one-line description adds no parameter-level meaning, which fits the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new OAuth client' pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and includes the word 'new', clearly marking this as an insertion operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_client, get_client, delete_client, and list_clients without needing additional context.

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 provided about when to choose create_client over other client-related siblings, nor are alternatives named or excluded. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Create' and the tool name.

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