Authenticate with Oura

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly implies mutation via OAuth flow. It adds that a URL is returned, but does not disclose potential side effects like token invalidation. The description adds moderate context beyond annotations.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place, clearly stating purpose and return value.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. It could elaborate on the overall OAuth flow (e.g., requiring a callback), but the current content is sufficient for an agent to use the tool.

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 zero parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it appropriately omits any.

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 explicitly states the tool starts an OAuth authorization flow and returns a URL. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oura_auth_status and oura_clear_auth by focusing on authentication initiation.

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 specifies the tool is 'Used for re-authentication after refresh_token expires', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like oura_auth_status for checking existing auth.

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