Sign in to OneNote

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses a real side effect (a browser window opening on the user's computer) that readOnlyHint alone would not convey, explains the differing outputs per method (browser vs. returned URL and code), and adds an operational instruction to relay instructions verbatim. That is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the check-then-act logic, followed by the method-dependent behavior and the user-facing instruction. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

Covers the prerequisite role, both flows, and the user-relay duty; no output schema exists, and it partially compensates by describing what the device flow returns. It does not say what a successful sign-in or browser-flow result looks like, a minor gap for an agent verifying completion.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining what each enum value actually does ('by default a browser window opens' vs. 'with device-code sign-in it returns a URL and code'), which the schema's terse 'Override the configured sign-in method' does not.

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 action pair (check sign-in state, start sign-in if missing) on a specific resource (Microsoft/OneNote account). The dual browser/device-code paths are named, and it is clearly distinguishable from the sibling onenote_sign_out.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('If not signed in, starts sign-in') and a dependency statement ('after they finish, other OneNote tools work') that tells the agent this is a prerequisite gate. It does not name onenote_sign_out as the counterpart/exclusion, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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