ms_prepare_compute_authorization

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses 'short-lived' and 'one-time' aspects, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, token consumption, return behavior, or what happens on repeated issuance. The approval configuration sentence is system setup, not a behavioral trait.

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 just two sentences with no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence about requiring approval is somewhat tangential but still concise and potentially useful.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to allow reliable invocation. It lacks parameter meanings, usage context, and what to do with the issued token, making the tool under-documented for its moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not interpret 'target', 'operation', or 'ttlSeconds' beyond a vague hint of 'short-lived' that maps to ttlSeconds. For a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is a critical gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Issue') and resource ('short-lived one-time token for one reviewed licensed calculation'), clearly indicating it is an authorization step for licensed calculations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct from calculation-running siblings like ms_forcite or ms_castep.

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 this tool is a prerequisite for licensed calculations by targeting 'one reviewed licensed calculation', but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or provide any when-not guidance. The note about requiring explicit approval is a configuration directive, not usage guidance.

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