social_media_posting_start_tiktok_oauth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., that it returns an OAuth URL or requires user interaction), but it does not contradict the annotations. Since the annotations carry the safety profile, the description's minimalism is acceptable but not enriching.

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 five-word sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. Essential information about parameters, return value, and usage is omitted. This is not effective conciseness but rather a lack of necessary content, penalizing the structure.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, what the OAuth flow returns, or what the agent should do with the result. The absence of usage guidelines and behavioral detail makes it difficult for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially given the large number of sibling OAuth tools.

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 descriptions are 100% present but superficial: 'Page', 'User Id', 'Reconnect', and 'Location Id' provide no semantic context. The tool description does not explain these parameters, leaving the agent to guess what 'page' or 'reconnect' mean. Even though schema coverage is high, the quality is low, and the description fails to compensate, so the score is below the baseline.

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 'Starts OAuth For Tiktok Account' clearly specifies the action (starts OAuth) and the resource (TikTok account). It distinguishes itself from sibling OAuth start tools by naming the platform, so an agent can select it when TikTok is the target. However, it lacks detail on what OAuth entails (e.g., generating a redirect URL), which would further clarify the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like start_facebook_oauth or start_instagram_oauth. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., having a TikTok business account) or scenarios where this should be avoided. The description merely states the action without any contextual or exclusionary information.

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