login

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Authenticate with Microsoft account.' It does not mention side effects like establishing a session, whether user interaction (e.g., browser prompt) is required, or how the 'force' parameter affects behavior. The parameter is mentioned in the schema but not integrated into the tool's behavioral description.

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, succinct sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structured presentation of key aspects (e.g., side effects, usage), so it is very concise but not well structured for complex information.

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 authentication tool that likely has significant side effects and requires user interaction, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what happens after authentication, return values, or the effect of the 'force' parameter in context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks essential context to predict outcomes.

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?

The schema provides complete documentation for the single 'force' parameter (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 'Authenticate with Microsoft account' clearly states the verb (authenticate) and resource (Microsoft account). It distinguishes from siblings like verify-login (which checks status) and logout (which ends session), though it does not elaborate on the specific outcome (e.g., establishing a session or obtaining tokens).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related authentication tools such as verify-login, select-account, or remove-account. The description does not mention typical call scenarios, prerequisites, or when the 'force' parameter is appropriate.

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