oauth2_clients_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are changed') and the authentication restriction, both valuable. However, it doesn't state whether updates take effect immediately, whether changes to redirectUris/scopes revoke existing tokens, or whether there's any validation side effects. The message is above average but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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?

Two concise sentences, zero wasted words. The most important usage constraint (authentication restriction) is front-loaded as the second sentence. Despite more behavioral detail being possible, the current content is efficiently packed with only ~22 words.

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 update tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, partial-update semantics, and the critical auth restriction. However, given the auth nuance ('Cannot be called via API key'), the description could explain how authentication SHOULD be performed (OAuth2 token from a user session?). Without annotations, more behavioral disclosure would elevate completeness.

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 100%, with each of the 8 parameters already described ('New name', 'New scopes', etc.). The description adds the partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are changed'), which clarifies that all these are optional. This is valuable context that the schema alone doesn't convey, but since the schema already documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb and resource clearly ('Update an existing OAuth2 application'). The most valuable addition is 'Only provided fields are changed', which signals partial-update behavior. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from oauth2_clients_create/revoke/rotate_secret siblings, but the resource+verb combination is reasonably 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 provides one critical usage constraint: 'Cannot be called via API key or OAuth2 token'. This is an implicit authentication requirement, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't say when to use this vs oauth2_clients_rotate_secret, revoke, or create, nor does it indicate whether this is the right tool for enabling/disabling via isActive.

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