Integrations: oauth configure

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses a critical non-obvious trait: each run replaces prior settings, silently disabling social sign-in unless use_social_sign_in is re-passed. It also states the disable branch saves credentials but switches off, and advises user confirmation for a destructive write.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope, replacement semantics, next step, and caution. Every sentence is load-bearing, though the second sentence partially restates the first's scope without new 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return/next-step burden and does so by naming integrations_oauth_connect and the dashboard as the connection path. For a destructive 5-param mutation, the coverage of replacement behavior and caution is 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the two behavioral flags: 'disable saves it switched off' and social sign-in re-enables only when use_social_sign_in is passed, which goes slightly beyond the raw schema text.

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 and resource ('Set the OAuth client ID + secret for a provider') and clarifies exactly what is being saved and enabled. An agent can distinguish it from integrations_oauth_connect (which connects users) and oauth_google_configure without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context (the app must already exist at the provider) and names the follow-up tool integrations_oauth_connect plus the dashboard as the way users connect. It also says to check with the user before running. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling oauth_google_configure path.

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