provider_register_oidc_relying_party

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this is specifically a creation operation for a new relying party and repeats the POST endpoint, but it does not add details about auth requirements, side effects, or how the generated client secret is returned.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the action, but it is repetitive: the second sentence restates the first, and the third repeats the POST endpoint already present in annotations/title. It could be tightened to a single clear sentence.

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 mutation with a nested body and no output schema, the schema supplies detailed field semantics and annotations supply the safety profile. The description is minimally adequate but omits useful context such as registration side effects, permissions, and why the generated client secret is only returned on this call.

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 100%, and the single body parameter is richly documented, including nested fields and their meanings. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Register an OIDC relying party' and explicitly says it registers a new one. It is clearly a create operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as provider_update_oidc_relying_party or provider_query_oidc_relying_parties.

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 description provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It implies creation by saying 'Registers a new' but does not explain when to choose this over update/query tools or what conditions are required.

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