Workboard Auth Start Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that tokens are stored automatically with no manual copying and states environment prerequisites. It omits what happens on repeat invocation or on failure/cancellation, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative action, then the step-by-step flow, then the follow-up call. Every sentence conveys distinct operational information with no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail needn't be spelled out, and the description still notes a URL is returned. Prerequisites, the redirect mechanics, and the confirming follow-up tool are all covered for a zero-param auth starter.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly beyond by flagging the environment-variable prerequisite, though there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 resource ('Begin browser authorization and return the URL'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tools that follow it (auth_status, auth_result) by describing its role as the entry point of the flow.

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 sequencing: open the returned URL, user approves, tokens stored automatically, then call workboard_auth_status_tool to confirm. It also names prerequisites (OAuth mode, WORKBOARD_OAUTH_REDIRECT_URI), 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.