set_client_id

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces them by disclosing 'No API call' and that the value is persisted locally on the machine. It does not state whether an existing stored client ID is overwritten, but the local-persistence detail meaningfully adds to the structured hints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the practical constraints ('Needed once before add_account. No API call.'). Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description need not explain returns, and the precondition/timing context is fully covered. The only gap is guidance on the optional client_secret parameter, though the schema description partially covers that.

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 50%: client_secret is documented in-schema ('Only for Web App (confidential) clients'), while client_id is bare. The description adds helpful context for client_id (its origin at console.x.com and OAuth nature) but never mentions client_secret or when it is required, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Save the OAuth 2.0 Client ID of the user's own X App') plus the storage scope ('on this machine'), so it is clearly distinct from siblings like add_account and complete_authorization. An agent can identify exactly what this does without opening the 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?

Explicitly states when this is needed ('Needed once before add_account') and the selecting condition ('for hosts that cannot pass the X_CLIENT_ID environment variable'), which is effectively the alternative path. Nothing about timing or precondition is left to inference.

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