blueberry

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description discloses that confirmed=false is a dry-run returning the question without opening OAuth, that confirmed=true triggers the client's OAuth linking UI and returns reconnect links, and that no user data or tokens are ever returned. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the confirmation protocol, then the safety guarantee, then an edge case. No filler and nothing buried at the end that an agent needs first.

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 guidance-only, two-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the trigger, the state machine for confirmed, the safety boundary, and the blocked-client fallback. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 50%: the schema documents confirmed but leaves client's enum values unexplained. The description fully compensates for confirmed by defining both the false and true semantics, but says nothing about which client value to pass, leaving half the parameters to the schema alone.

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 and resource chain — ask the user, then open the client's OAuth linking flow — and names the exact trigger conditions (UNAUTHORIZED, invalid_token, app requires reauthentication). An agent can tell precisely what this tool does without inspecting the schema, and the title reinforces it.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions, a mandatory two-step protocol (ask first, only call confirmed=true after explicit agreement), and an exclusion: the tool returns guidance only, never user data or tokens. It even names the alternative path when a client blocks the app before requests are sent (reconnect in client settings).

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