Zitadel MCP

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies what aspects of the app can be updated but doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., are they preserved or reset?).

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. Annotations cover safety (non-destructive, idempotent), but the description lacks context on error conditions, response format, or dependencies. It's adequate given annotations but leaves gaps for operational use.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'redirect URIs, auth method, etc.', which loosely maps to some parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., clarifying 'auth method' isn't a direct parameter). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('OIDC application's configuration'), with specific examples of what can be updated ('redirect URIs, auth method, etc.'). It distinguishes from creation tools like 'zitadel_create_oidc_app' by specifying 'Update', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update operations on the server.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing app), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'zitadel_get_app' for checking current configuration before updating.

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