auth_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden — and it delivers. It discloses side effects (consent page, redirect listener, code exchange, token storage in owner-only 0600 config), explicit non-effects (does not modify profile), and security posture (returns only non-secret status, never the token). This is rich, safety-relevant behavioral disclosure.

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 dense yet efficient; it front-loads the core purpose and then packs flow details, security caveats, and the alternate mode into a tight sequence of sentences. No word is wasted, and every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure is already covered. The description handles the flow, the url_only alternate mode, and the critical security behavior (never returning the token). The only notable gap is the unexplained timeout_seconds parameter, which leaves a small but real hole in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains url_only ('just print the authorization URL without starting the listener'), adding real meaning beyond the schema's default. However, timeout_seconds is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description — a genuine gap given no coverage exists anywhere.

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 and resource ('Run the LinkedIn OAuth sign-in') with a precise breakdown of the flow: opens consent page, catches redirect, exchanges code, stores token. The sentence 'Does NOT modify the profile' distinguishes it from profile-editing siblings like propose_edit and apply_proposal. This clearly differentiates it from auth_status, which merely reports status.

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 gives clear context for the primary OAuth startup flow and explicitly explains the url_only=true alternate mode ('just print the authorization URL without starting the listener'). However, it does not explicitly route the agent to auth_status for checking existing auth state, though the 'Does NOT modify the profile' statement offers a weak exclusion against profile tools.

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