import_google_auth_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it imports JSON and applies mappings, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), failure modes (e.g., invalid JSON or missing file), or authorization requirements. The output schema exists but is not mentioned; the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action.

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, consisting of two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and target, and the second sentence provides context. However, the first sentence could be broken for readability. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return structure (though output schema exists), prerequisites, error conditions, or how mappings interact. For an admin/setup tool, more detail is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'script/account/domain mappings' but only as a generic concept, failing to detail the specific parameters 'mapped_script_ids', 'mapped_accounts', 'mapped_domains', or their types. Parameters like 'set_default' and 'flow_preference' are completely omitted. The description adds limited meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 verb 'Import' and the resource 'Google OAuth client JSON into auth_clients.json', along with the additional mappings. It also positions the tool as an admin/setup tool for enterprise/private multi-client routing, which gives context. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'setup_google_auth_clients', which likely has overlapping functionality.

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 mentions it is an 'admin/setup tool for enterprise/private multi-client routing', implying it's for initial configuration. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'setup_google_auth_clients' or 'start_google_auth'. There are no when-not-to-use guidelines or mention of prerequisites (e.g., availability of OAuth client JSON).

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