onedrive_complete_reauth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Check if OneDrive re-authentication completed,' but does not explain what happens if not completed, whether it blocks or returns immediately, what the return value indicates, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely returns a status or error, and the agent has no idea what to expect.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies behavior, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue. For structure, it is appropriately sized.

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 has an output schema (though not shown in the context), and no parameters, so the description should explain the return value or how to interpret the completion status. It does neither. It also fails to mention any potential errors, timeouts, or prerequisites beyond 'call after user visits URL.' For a tool that is part of a two-step re-authentication flow, this is incomplete; an agent needs to know what to do with the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has full coverage (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from that. It correctly implies there are no inputs to configure.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a resource ('OneDrive re-authentication'), but it is vague about what 'completed' means and what the outcome looks like. It distinguishes itself from onedrive_start_reauth implicitly, but not explicitly. The purpose is clear enough to avoid tautology, but lacks specificity about the check's result.

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 instruction 'Call after user visits URL' provides a clear temporal context for when to use the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool onedrive_start_reauth is the obvious counterpart, and the usage context is unambiguous. No further guidance is given, but the minimal context is adequate for a simple check tool.

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