oauth2_clients_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the client secret is returned only once (store it securely) and that the tool cannot be called via API key or OAuth2 token (requires browser session JWT) — both are important behavioral constraints beyond what the schema reveals. However, it doesn't clarify consequences of invalid scopes (whether the call fails or silently downgrades) or any rate limits.

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 sentences, tightly packed with genuinely useful information. The auth-requirement disclosure and the one-time secret warning are high-value additions. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

No output schema exists, so the tool must disclose the return value behavior — it does highlight the one-time client secret, which is the key output concern. Schema coverage is 100%, and the 7 params are self-explanatory given the domain. For a create operation with good param documentation and the critical side-effect (secret) disclosed, this is reasonably complete for an agent.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema, but the schema's own descriptions are clear (e.g., clientType enum distinguishes confidential vs public). The description's one-time-secret warning provides context for the confidential clientType implications, which adds marginal value.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Register a new OAuth2 application') and clarifies it's a third-party integration. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like oauth2_clients_list, oauth2_clients_get, oauth2_clients_revoke, and oauth2_clients_rotate_secret. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: it states the authentication requirement (browser session JWT, not API key or OAuth2 token), which serves as an important usage boundary. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it — though the create vs. list/get/revoke/rotate naming makes that self-evident. The auth constraint is the most valuable usage guidance here.

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