client_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates a client and that credentials:true yields a private client with a secret, but this largely restates the schema's property description. It does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, what happens on creation, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence isolates the most important optional behavior. It is easily scannable and appropriately sized for a simple create operation.

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?

The description plus fully covered schema is adequate for invoking the tool correctly, since all five parameters are documented. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not mention return behavior, authentication expectations, or any post-creation effects. For a create tool, this leaves some operational context missing, though the core call is understandable.

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 even though the description adds little parameter meaning. The description's credentials:true note does add some clarity, but the schema already documents the same behavior in the credentials property description. Thus the description provides no significant additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an OAuth2 client.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (client_list, client_get, client_update, client_delete, client_count) because it is the only create-focused operation. The additional note about private clients adds useful specificity without obscuring the core purpose.

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 a clear parameter-level guideline: use credentials:true to create a private client with a secret. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as client_update, nor does it mention any prerequisites for creating a client. The usage context is implied by the create verb but not fully spelled out.

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