authenticate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the essential non-obvious behavior: the returned authUrl must be opened by the user in a browser, the user must select and authorize, and the token is then stored automatically without a direct response containing it. This is meaningful context beyond the schema, though it omits details like timeout behavior or label-overwrite semantics.

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 with no filler: it states the action, the returned artifact, the required user step, the automatic token storage, and the completion-check path. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an OAuth-start tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key flow: call this, get authUrl, user authorizes in browser, token is saved, then verify with auth_status. It does not specify the exact return shape beyond containing authUrl, but that is sufficient for an agent to orchestrate the flow correctly.

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 100%, and both parameters (label and extra_scopes) are already well documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'MFへのOAuth認証を開始する' (start OAuth authentication to MF), which clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools that perform accounting operations or office management. It also clarifies the overall flow by stating an authUrl is returned and tokens are saved automatically, so the tool's purpose is unmistakable.

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 implicitly defines when to use this tool—when starting OAuth authentication for MF—and explicitly directs the completion check to auth_status ('完了確認はauth_status'). This gives the agent a clear next step and distinguishes it from the authentication-status sibling, though it does not exhaustively discuss when not to use it relative to the full sibling list.

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