sp_auth_begin

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds critical behavior: non-blocking, background polling, idempotency for existing sessions, and force parameter effect. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches understanding beyond structured fields.

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 thorough but slightly verbose. However, it is well-structured: first paragraph covers core behavior, second covers idempotency, third gives agent formatting instructions. Every sentence adds value. Minor room for tightening.

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?

Given the complexity of an auth flow with background polling and idempotency, the description covers all necessary aspects: initiation, non-blocking, polling guidance, idempotency, force restart, and agent instructions. Output schema exists, so return values are specified elsewhere. The description is complete for correct tool usage.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description fully explains profile (default 'default') and force (cancels and restarts pending session). It adds meaning that the schema alone lacks, such as default values and behavioral effects.

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 it initiates a Microsoft Identity Device Code login for a profile. It specifies non-blocking behavior, returns user_code and verification_url, and contrasts with sp_auth_status for polling. The verb 'Initiate' and resource 'Microsoft Identity Device Code login' are specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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 says when to use this tool (to begin login) and when to use sp_auth_status (poll for status). It covers idempotency: existing pending session is returned unless force=True, which cancels and restarts. It also instructs the agent to present the code in a fenced block and URL as a plain link.

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