microsoft_auth

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it returns immediately without blocking, opens a browser tab as a convenience, notes the URL in the response is authoritative (especially for wrong-profile scenarios), and explains background token saving. This goes well beyond a basic 'authenticates' statement.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence delivers unique value: the immediate-return behavior, the confirmation tool, and the browser-tab caveat. No fluff 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?

For an auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the return behavior (consent URL), the user interaction, the background token save, and the follow-up confirmation. It gives the agent and user enough detail to use the tool correctly without any structured outputs to rely on.

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 account_name is fully documented in the schema with a default and example ('consulting', 'personal'). The description doesn't add extra semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Authenticate a Microsoft account' – a specific verb and resource – and clarifies the account types (M365 work/school or personal/Hotmail). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like microsoft_status (which confirms auth state) and the calendar/outlook tools.

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 explicitly instructs to give the consent URL to the user, explains the flow (user approves in browser, token saves in background), and directs confirmation via microsoft_status. It doesn't mention when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the multi-step usage guidance is clear and actionable.

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