authenticate_untappd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the interactive process: opens browser, blocks until approval (up to timeout_seconds), saves token to disk, and applies immediately without server restart. This provides strong behavioral transparency for an authentication tool.

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 moderately concise with a clear front-loaded purpose. All sentences add value, including prerequisites and behavioral details. It could be slightly more concise but structure is good.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: prerequisites, interactive behavior, effect (token saved, immediate use). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool.

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 single parameter timeout_seconds is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by stating 'blocks until they approve (up to timeout_seconds)'. Per guidelines, 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 interactively authenticates the user with Untappd via OAuth to unlock specific features like get_friend_feed, user-scoped rate limits, and richer /user data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which are authentication-related.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to unlock get_friend_feed, user-scoped rate limits, and richer /user data. It also lists prerequisites (callback URL, client ID/secret). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives for authentication (though siblings don't offer auth).

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