tailscale_create_oauth_app

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

Annotations already signal mutation but the description goes further: it discloses that the client secret is shown only once, cannot be retrieved again, and is a long-lived credential that MCP clients may persist in logs. It also clarifies the auth flow details beyond annotations, such as one auth key per authorization and no refresh token. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and security-critical return value, and the SECURITY section earns its place. Every sentence adds operational or selection value with no 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?

With no output schema, the description rightly highlights the most important return behavior: the client secret must be saved immediately and is sensitive. It could additionally sketch the full response shape, but the essential operational knowledge needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by explaining the supported scope, the one-auth-key behavior, and the flow implications for redirectUris, though most parameter detail already lives in the 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?

States a specific verb, resource, and purpose: creates an OAuth App for device provisioning via the authorization-code flow. It also distinguishes itself from tailscale_create_key with keyType='client', making it easy to differentiate from the closest sibling.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tailscale_create_key and explains the condition that selects between them: this tool is for user-consented, device-provisioning OAuth apps, while create_key with keyType='client' is for machine-to-machine OAuth clients. The supported scope and flow are also stated clearly.

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