Update OIDC App

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

The description discloses that the tool modifies an OIDC application, which is consistent with annotations (idempotentHint, openWorldHint). However, it does not elaborate on specific behaviors like the need for a current revision or potential side effects beyond the update scope.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and options. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main update types but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., fetching _rev via getOidcApp) and return behavior. The openWorldHint suggests possible unlisted effects, but the description could still be more complete.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only summarizing that client config and metadata can be updated. It does not detail the structure or required fields like _rev for metadata.

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 clearly states the tool updates an OIDC application, specifying that it can update client configuration, application metadata, or both. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like createOidcApp or deleteOidcApp.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to update an existing OIDC app) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as if the app doesn't exist (use create) or prerequisites like obtaining the current revision from getOidcApp for metadata updates.

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