Integrations: oauth connect

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

Annotations only give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it starts a local listener, opens a browser, waits up to five minutes, and requires a human to complete the sign-in. The prerequisite and human-in-the-loop requirement are exactly the kind of context an agent needs and cannot get from 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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the core action and mechanism, then append prerequisites and the sibling alternative. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of the title.

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?

For a human-in-the-loop OAuth flow with six documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the flow, timing, defaults, prerequisite, and the correct alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all six parameters (including defaults for port 8745 and the 300s timeout) are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the port and timeout defaults but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and mechanism ('Connect via the browser OAuth flow') and then explains exactly what happens: opens the provider's sign-in page, waits for the callback on localhost, and creates the connection. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling `integrations_connect` (API-key providers) and `integrations_oauth_configure` (setup).

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?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: use this for browser OAuth, use `integrations_connect` for API-key providers, and the provider must first be configured with `integrations_oauth_configure`. The alternative tool is named directly with the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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