opencode_provider_oauth_authorize

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, destructive operation, so the description need not repeat those flags. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name, such as whether this launches an external browser flow, requires user interaction, or expects a subsequent callback. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, but it may be too sparse for a tool with three parameters and nested object inputs; conciseness is achieved by omitting useful operational detail rather than by condensing rich content.

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 tool has moderate complexity and participates in a multi-step OAuth flow, yet the description does not mention the surrounding sequence: resolving provider IDs, selecting an auth method, or completing authorization via opencode_provider_oauth_callback. Although the schema is well-described and an output schema exists, the description alone leaves the agent without enough process context to use the tool confidently.

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%, with providerId, method, and inputs already documented meaningfully, including the method's default and its link to opencode_provider_auth_methods. The tool description itself contributes no additional parameter semantics. This stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action ('Start') and resource ('OAuth authorization for a provider'), making it clear that this tool initiates rather than completes an OAuth flow. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling opencode_provider_oauth_callback, but the verb 'start' differentiates initiation from callback handling. Some ambiguity remains about what 'starting authorization' concretely entails.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opencode_provider_auth_methods or opencode_provider_oauth_callback. It does not mention prerequisites like resolving provider IDs or auth method indices before authorizing. The only sequencing hints are implicit in the schema, not in the description.

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