ecp_git_authorize_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key limitation: the tool only returns a URL and cannot complete OAuth itself, which is valuable. However, it does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether the provider must already be configured), or error conditions. The description gives the essential behavior but not a comprehensive picture.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action ('Get the OAuth authorize URL') and then adds the essential caveat about opening it in a browser. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the critical caveat about browser completion. It does not mention whether the URL is one-time or whether the user should first check existing connections (via ecp_git_list_connections), but given the tool's simplicity, this is not a significant gap. The description is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description does not elaborate on the 'provider' parameter, but the enum in the schema (github, gitlab, bitbucket) makes the valid values clear. Since the tool is specifically for git providers and the parameter is self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, it would benefit from a note like 'Specify the provider you want to connect,' but the enum suffices for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving an OAuth authorize URL for connecting a git provider. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('OAuth authorize URL'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ecp_git_list_providers or ecp_git_list_connections by focusing on the authorization step. No ambiguity.

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 explicitly instructs to open the URL in a browser and notes that the tool cannot complete OAuth itself, giving clear guidance on the immediate next step. It implies this is the initial step in connecting a provider, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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