auth

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with auth operations. The description adds behavioral details like 'no auth server needed' and 'force re-authentication', increasing transparency about tool behavior beyond the schema.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and actions. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every phrase adds value with no redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. It could mention outcomes like token acquisition or session state, but the provided details are sufficient for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description enriches parameter understanding by explaining enum values (e.g., method descriptions for device-code and browser) and the force parameter's effect. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: managing authentication with Microsoft Graph API. It lists four distinct actions (status, authenticate, device-code-complete, about) and specifies their roles, making it unambiguous what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools which are email-focused.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action, including defaults and the remote usability of device-code flow. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparisons with siblings, but the context is clear enough given distinct purpose.

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