trmnl_auth_start

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it is a two-phase flow, it returns a consent URL rather than completing auth, and it persists a credential locally after the callback. Gaps remain — where the credential is stored, how it is keyed, and what a repeat call does to an in-flight PKCE state (relevant given idempotentHint=false) are unstated.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information: mechanism, return value plus a non-behavior, and the side effect. No filler.

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 small entry-point auth tool with no output schema, the description covers mechanism and outcome reasonably, but it omits the flow sequence (what to call after the user consents), how the profile parameter scopes the stored credential, and what the returned payload contains.

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 either parameter. The scopes enum values are partly self-explanatory, but what each scope actually grants is undefined, and the profile string pattern (which identity the credential is stored under) 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Start browser OAuth with PKCE") and the concrete artifact it produces (a consent URL). This clearly separates it from siblings like trmnl_auth_status and trmnl_auth_cancel without naming them explicitly.

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?

"Never approves consent" implies user action is required between this call and credential storage, which hints at the flow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to trmnl_auth_status/trmnl_auth_cancel as the follow-up/abort paths, and no stated prerequisites.

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