oauth2_clients_create

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing two non-obvious traits: the client secret is returned only once for confidential clients (an irrecoverable disclosure the agent must warn about), and the call requires a browser session JWT rather than the API credentials the rest of the surface uses. Annotations only say readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, which would not have surfaced either fact.

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, each carrying distinct information: what it creates, the one-time secret return, and the auth constraint. The critical warning sits early rather than buried at the end.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully indicates what comes back (the client secret, conditionally on client type) and what credentials are required. It remains silent on other returned identifiers (e.g. the client_id) and on constraints like name uniqueness or scope-approval failure modes, which an agent creating an app might reasonably need.

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%, so all seven parameters, including the clientType enum, are already documented with meaning. The description only echoes the confidential/public distinction in passing and adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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: "Register a new OAuth2 application (third-party integration)." The parenthetical scope plus the oauth2_clients_* sibling family (list/get/update/revoke/rotate_secret) makes it obvious this is the creation entry point.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition that rules out whole classes of callers: "Cannot be called via API key or OAuth2 token; requires a browser session JWT." It does not explicitly route the agent to oauth2_clients_update or oauth2_clients_rotate_secret for other tasks, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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