OpenPanel: Create client

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: the three permission tiers (write=tracking only, read=export/analytics, root=full access) and the authorization requirement that the caller must already hold a root-mode client. It does not disclose whether the returned credentials are shown only once or how a duplicate name is handled, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the mode semantics, then the prerequisite. Nothing is repeated and nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent creation tool with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers permissions and modes but leaves the identity of site/project_id and the generated-credential outcome unspecified. An agent can invoke it, but must guess at two required parameters and at what it receives back.

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 the load. It does document the meaningful values for the 'mode' parameter, which the schema leaves as an unspecified string. The remaining three required parameters (site, name, project_id) are never explained, so the compensation is only partial.

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?

"Create a new API client via Manage API" gives a specific verb and resource, and the mode enumeration clarifies what kind of client is produced. It does not contrast itself with nearby creation tools such as oauth_register_client or openpanel_create_project, so the sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 prerequisite "Requires 'root' mode client" is a genuinely useful gating condition that tells the agent when this call will succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over oauth_register_client or other client-creation paths, and no guidance on when a given mode should be chosen beyond the one-line glosses.

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