Validate source authentication

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects. It does reveal that the tool 'persists only the resulting status', which indicates a write operation. However, it does not mention failure behavior, security requirements, or whether existing status is overwritten. This is partial transparency but not rich.

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 front-loads the primary action and result. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: sourceId is unexplained, the return value is not described, and prerequisites (e.g., completing an interactive session) are implied but not detailed. Sibling tools suggest a broader workflow, but this description does not situate the tool within it.

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 input schema has one required parameter, sourceId, with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention sourceId or explain its meaning. The parameter semantics are entirely undefined, leaving the agent to guess that sourceId identifies the source, but without any confirmation.

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 states the tool's main action: validating a completed interactive authentication session and persisting the resulting status. The verb 'validates' and resource 'completed interactive authentication session' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_source_auth_status (which likely only retrieves status) by emphasizing it persists the 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'completed interactive authentication session' implies it should follow an interactive auth flow, but no sibling tool is referenced (e.g., begin_source_reauth) and no exclusion criteria are provided. The context is implied, not explicit.

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