start_oauth_flow

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool opens a browser, requires no client credentials from the user, and stores the access token under a secret_name. It lacks details about output/return behavior and overwrite semantics, but covers core side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no extraneous information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and side effects, but doesn't mention what the tool returns or failure behavior. It's a reasonable but not exhaustive description.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds minimal extra parameter context, such as how secret_name is used with get_secret/resolve_secret, but the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool authenticates a provider via browser-based OAuth2 web flow, distinguishing it from sibling secret management tools like get_secret and store_secret. It also explains the token storage for later retrieval.

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?

It implies usage by noting no client_id or client_secret is needed and that the token is stored for use with get_secret/resolve_secret. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or state exclusions, so it's not as strong as the calibration best case.

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