Create Federation Issuer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: 'Saving does not fetch keys' (a side effect an agent would otherwise assume), the auth modes required, and the shape of the returned issuer object. Remaining gaps are duplicate-name behavior and whether issuer_url is validated against live discovery, which the agent must discover by trial.

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?

Four short sentences in a deliberate order: what it creates, the key non-obvious side effect, the return value, then the authorization gate. Nothing is repeated and nothing could be dropped without losing information the agent needs.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important bases: creation modes, the no-key-fetch caveat, the returned fields, and the auth constraint. It stops short of describing what happens on a duplicate issuer name or whether jwks_url is verified at save time, which matters for an operation annotated as destructive and non-idempotent.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates only partially: it explains the discovery-vs-explicit-JWKS dichotomy that governs jwks_url/jwks_source, but leaves 'organization' ambiguous (ID vs. slug) and says nothing about the 'name' slug pattern or the free-form 'description'. The mode relationship is the useful addition beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create an organization issuer') and immediately scopes it to the two supported modes (discovery vs. explicit JWKS URL). The verb alone separates it from the get/list/update/delete-federation-issuer siblings, and the 'organization issuer' phrasing separates it from create-federation-rule.

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?

It states the precondition clearly (organization admin via user session or OAuth with full_access) and adds an explicit exclusion ('API keys and workload tokens cannot manage federation configuration'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. What it does not do is route between this and its siblings, e.g. that update-federation-issuer should be used for existing issuers.

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