manage_oauth_client

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: deleting prevents new authorizations while existing access tokens remain revocable as API keys, and the delete path is a two-phase preview/confirm. The only omission is what a create returns (no client secret surfaced in the description, though the 'no client secret' framing implies it), so a small gap remains.

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 text is front-loaded with the resource definition and then organized per action, so scanning by action works well. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, and the parenthetical about access tokens is slightly buried mid-sentence, but no sentence is 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?

For a 10-parameter destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the confirm/preview workflow and the per-action required fields, which is the information an agent most needs to avoid a bad call. The gap is the three optional fields (homepage, description, is_active) that neither schema nor description documents.

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?

With 70% schema coverage the schema does much of the work, but the description adds real meaning for action, confirm, client_id, and the create-required trio (client_name, allowed_redirect_uris, default_scopes), plus the constraint that confirm=true is gated on user approval. It does not explain homepage, description, or is_active, which are undocumented in the schema as well, so it stops short of full compensation.

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 names a specific resource class (self-serve OAuth 2.1 + PKCE developer clients) with a defining characteristic (public clients, no client secret) and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling list_oauth_clients. The verb 'manage' is then decomposed into create/update/delete semantics, so an agent knows exactly what surface this tool covers.

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?

Each action is given an explicit required-field set, plus an explicit confirmation protocol (create/update require confirm=true only after user approval; delete requires preview-then-confirm with preview_id). It also routes listing behavior to list_oauth_clients and tells the agent where client_id comes from, so there is essentially no ambiguity about when and how to call it.

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