auth

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

The description discloses key behaviors: token refreshing, OAuth flow initiation, default methods. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint false is consistent with mutation actions). Minor omission: no mention of token caching or persistence.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the overall purpose and then details each action efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main actions and parameter details. However, it omits return values (e.g., what status returns) and error handling, leaving some context gaps.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining default values (device-code for method), the meaning of device-code vs browser, and the force flag context, which goes beyond the schema.

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 lists all actions (status, authenticate, device-code-complete, about) with their specific purposes, using a verb+resource structure. It distinguishes each action's role in authentication management.

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 explains when to use each action (e.g., status by default, authenticate for OAuth flow). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings, though siblings are email-related so differentiation is implicit.

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