start_device_authorization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states the call returns IMMEDIATELY with a short code and link, does not wait for approval, and warns that a combined tool would expire. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth prerequisites, but the core non-blocking behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then rationale. The design explanation is somewhat lengthy but earns its place by preventing an agent from calling this as a blocking or standalone connection step.

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 immediate-return flow and next step are well covered, and an output schema exists for return values. However, the meaning of the only parameter is missing, and the relationship to connect_book is not clarified, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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% and the description never mentions control_url. The agent is left to guess what this optional string means and how to populate it. The sole parameter is completely unexplained.

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?

Opens with 'Step 1 of connecting a hosted book: get a code for the user to approve', naming a concrete verb and resource. It also positions itself against await_device_approval, so an agent can clearly distinguish this step from the waiting step.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to show the returned code and link to the user, then call await_device_approval to wait. The explanation of why the tool is split into two steps reinforces that this call should not be treated as a blocking completion, which is strong usage guidance.

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