login

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does most of it: it discloses the return payload (URL plus one-time code), the required human step, and that completion happens asynchronously in the background. The only gap is it doesn't say what happens if the user is already signed in without force, so an agent can't predict whether a fresh code is always issued.

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 the action, then the user-facing steps in sequence, then the async completion and confirmation, then the force case. Every sentence maps to a distinct decision the calling agent has to make; 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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape, the human interaction, asynchronous completion, the confirmation path, and the force semantics. It falls just short of complete because it doesn't cover the already-authenticated state or the failure case.

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 0% — the schema only says 'force: boolean' — so the description must supply meaning, and it does: 'Use force: true to sign in again (e.g. after adding a permission in Azure).' It implies the default is to skip re-sign-in when already authenticated, but doesn't state that default or the false case explicitly.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Sign in to the Microsoft account') and immediately separates itself from the sibling auth_status by casting that tool as the confirmation step. An agent can pick it out from the mail and auth siblings without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use (initial sign-in), when to re-run ('force: true ... e.g. after adding a permission in Azure'), and names the follow-up tool (auth_status to confirm). Both the primary path and the re-authentication path are routed, leaving nothing to infer.

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