firedrill_authenticate

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (openWorld, non-readonly, non-idempotent): it discloses the WorkOS device-approval mechanism, that it shares the CLI's protected login, that it never returns tokens, and that cancel preserves protected state. The remaining gap is that the return/polling shape of 'status' and the device-code hand-off are not described, which matters for an open-world auth flow.

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 purpose before the action breakdown, and every sentence carries information (scope limits, security behavior, per-action meaning, CI constraint). The semicolon-joined action list is dense but readable; only marginal trimming is possible.

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 multi-action auth flow with no output schema and no sibling tools, the description covers purpose, mechanism, per-action behavior, state semantics, and a deployment constraint. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though the expected result of each action (e.g., what 'status' reports, what the human must do externally) is not spelled out.

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 reported high, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches the enum values by explaining the behavioral intent of status/start/choose/cancel rather than just naming them. It does not, however, explain the 'reauthorize' or 'retryRefresh' flags on 'start', which remain undocumented.

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 object ('Authorize the coding-agent operator to use Firedrill') and names the mechanism (WorkOS device approval). It further delimits scope by saying what it does NOT authenticate (the provider, the target application), so an agent can tell exactly what outcome this tool produces.

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?

Gives per-action usage: 'status reads progress', 'start explicitly initiates approval or resumes...', 'choose selects a legal organization choice', 'cancel stops this local wait'. It also adds an explicit exclusion ('Do not start in CI'), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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