finish_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains that the tool completes the device-code flow after user approval and notes mode-specific behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., if called when auth is already complete), rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves some gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds context about modes. Every word is necessary; no fluff.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (presumed to document return values), the description is largely complete. It covers both Lambda and local modes. However, it could explicitly mention that output is provided (e.g., tokens or errors) to fully contextualize the tool's role.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully covered). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, which 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's purpose: complete Microsoft authentication after user approval. It distinguishes from sibling auth_status by specifying that finish_auth is not needed in Lambda mode, where auth_status should be called instead. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: in Lambda mode, use auth_status; in local mode, use this tool to complete the device-code flow. This provides clear context and excludes improper usage.

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