Authorize a pending Tailscale device by providing its device ID to grant it access to your tailnet.
Authorize a device that is pending authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | Yes | The device ID to authorize |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about pending authorization but does not elaborate on side effects or idempotency beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is tightly focused on the core action and resource, fitting the 5-star standard for conciseness.
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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It accurately communicates the function without requiring additional context.
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 schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions (deviceId: 'The device ID to authorize'), so the description adds no additional semantics. Baseline 3 applies as the schema provides adequate meaning.
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 the action (authorize) and the target (device that is pending authorization). It distinguishes itself from siblings like tailscale_deauthorize_device and tailscale_delete_device. The verb is specific and the resource is well-defined.
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 implies usage when a device is pending authorization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tailscale_deauthorize_device. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.