opencode_auth_set

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a credential-mutating tool it omits whether existing credentials are overwritten, where secrets are stored, whether a restart or re-auth is required, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is partly the cause of the gaps elsewhere.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is the only source of behavioral detail and it supplies almost none. An agent could invoke it but would be guessing on 'type' semantics and side effects.

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 0% for all three required parameters. The description hints only at 'key' (API key) and implicitly at provider; the 'type' parameter is completely undefined, leaving the agent no basis for choosing a valid 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?

The description states a specific verb (Set) and resource (authentication credentials for a provider) and the '(API key)' qualifier implicitly separates it from OAuth-based siblings like opencode_provider_oauth_authorize. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus opencode_provider_oauth_authorize/opencode_provider_oauth_callback or opencode_provider_auth_methods, which the agent must consult first to know which auth type a provider supports. No prerequisites, no mention that the provider must already exist.

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