OpenCode Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the act of setting credentials, such as whether existing credentials are overwritten, how credentials are stored, or whether any validation occurs.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is so brief that it leaves useful operational guidance unstated.

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 an auth-setting tool with minimal schema parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It lacks usage boundaries, side-effect disclosure, and parameter detail, leaving an agent without enough context to confidently invoke it correctly among related configuration tools.

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 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It relates provider_id and credentials to the overall purpose, but does not explain acceptable credential shapes, required fields, or how provider_id should be specified.

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 target: 'Set authentication credentials for a provider.' This clearly communicates the tool's core purpose and distinguishes it from generic configuration operations. Some ambiguity remains with opencode_update_config, but the credential-specific focus is strong enough.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like opencode_update_config, set_preferences, or clear_preferences. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions, so an agent must infer usage context from the name alone.

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