outlook_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: it returns a URL and code, and also prints the code to stderr. It could add details about token caching or session persistence, but the core interactive flow is transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and then provide actionable steps. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema content.

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 interactive login tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned (URL and code) and the required user action. It lacks explicit error/timeout handling, but overall the context is complete for invoking and guiding the user.

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 single parameter 'force' is fully described in the schema with a default and explanation, giving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 action, 'Start Microsoft device-code login for Outlook,' clearly identifying the resource and purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_auth_status and outlook_sign_out.

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 usage context: call this to begin login, then open the provided URL and enter the code. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the login initiation is unambiguous.

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