Oauth: google configure

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is partly covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: interactive-only operation, per-value prompting with blank meaning 'keep current', and printing a callback URL to paste into the Google OAuth client. It confirms rather than merely repeats the destructive nature.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct information (action, effect, interaction model, warning). Minor redundancy between 'Set Google OAuth client ID and secret' and 'Saves the Google Cloud OAuth client ID and secret' keeps it from a 5.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: it explains the interactive input flow, the callback URL it emits, and the destructive confirmation requirement. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still usefully explains how inputs are actually collected (interactive prompts, blank retains the current value), which compensates for the empty schema and tells the agent not to expect arguments.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Set Google OAuth client ID and secret') and adds the effect ('switches that sign-in on or off'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as oauth_google_status or integrations_oauth_configure to disambiguate, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives real usage context: the tool 'only works interactively, prompting for each value (blank keeps the current one)' and instructs the agent to 'check with the user before running it'. There is no explicit statement of when-not-to-use or which sibling to prefer instead, so it stops short of the top score.

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