mhangani_authorize

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Record explicit authorization' but does not disclose possible side effects, whether the action is reversible, or any permission requirements. It also does not explain what the output represents or whether the tool is idempotent. The description is too minimal for a write operation with no 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?

The description is two sentences long, with each sentence adding distinct value: the first states the core function, the second provides essential usage timing. It is concise and front-loaded, with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema. The description covers primary purpose and when to use, but lacks explanation of the 'note' parameter and any behavioral details such as whether previous authorizations are replaced. Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described, but other gaps lower the completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It indirectly hints that 'url' refers to the target host, but it does not explicitly map parameters or explain the purpose of the 'note' parameter. Given the low coverage, this is insufficient.

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 records explicit authorization for a target host, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mhangani_audit and mhangani_report by focusing solely on the authorization step. The phrase 'Run this before auditing a host for the first time' adds context that it is a prerequisite action.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run this before auditing a host for the first time.' This clearly indicates the tool should be used as a precursor to auditing. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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