cep_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the browser-opening behavior, user confirmation requirement, requested scopes, and the continuation flow with redirectUrl. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's side effects and interaction requirements.

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 concise yet comprehensive, using clear sentences that each convey a necessary piece of information: purpose, warning, exclusion, scopes, and usage steps. No fluff.

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 interactive auth flow and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers operational steps, prerequisites (user warning), and response handling. The absence of return value details is acceptable since an output schema exists.

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 already covers both parameters (authMethod enum and redirectUrl). The description adds value by explaining the exact usage flow: call with no arguments to start, and pass redirectUrl when nextAction is paste-redirect-url. This enriches the schema's static definitions.

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 signs in to Google for the CEP MCP server, identifies the specific scope set, and distinguishes it from the Google Workspace MCP auth tool. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cep_auth_status and cep_auth_clear.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the mandatory user warning and confirmation, the restriction to only the CEP MCP server, and the specific two-step flow for handling nextAction. This goes beyond simple context and gives actionable instructions.

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