plan_oauth_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that a browser opens and login auto-runs, but lacks details on blocking behavior (wait parameter), timeout, potential side effects, or what happens if already logged in. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with three short sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the purpose, includes key behavioral hints, and avoids any waste.

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 simple OAuth login tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the main behavior and automation feature. It misses parameter details but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to understand the core functionality.

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 only 33% (only 'wait' has a description). The description does not explain any parameter beyond the schema, such as timeout_ms or open_browser, so it adds minimal value. Given low coverage, it should compensate but fails to do so.

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 opens a browser for Notion login, specifies the domain (mcp.notion.com), and distinguishes itself by noting auto-run behavior and absence of client credentials. This differentiates it from siblings like plan_oauth_logout and plan_oauth_wait.

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 indicates the tool auto-runs on first use if not logged in, implying when it's triggered. It also mentions no CLIENT_ID/SECRET needed, setting expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.

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