zmp_start_oauth_callback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this binds a local HTTP server on localhost and captures a redirect code/token, but says nothing about whether the call blocks until the callback arrives, what happens on timeout (timeoutSec is only in the schema), or how the captured code is handed off.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the example URL earns its place by pinning down the callback path shape. It is appropriately sized for a four-parameter tool, though it is too terse to carry the flow context the tool needs.

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 a tool with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains the mechanism but not the surrounding contract: what is returned or persisted, whether it blocks, and how it chains into zmp_set_token or zmp_wait_for_login. It is minimally sufficient but leaves real 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so port, zaloAppId, projectDir and timeoutSec are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the illustrative callback URL that happens to match the default port; it does not explain parameter interactions (e.g. that projectDir controls where the token is persisted). Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Start a local HTTP OAuth callback server', with the concrete example URL making the mechanism unambiguous. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the closely related auth siblings (zmp_wait_for_login, zmp_request_login_qr, zmp_set_token), so an agent must infer the ordering from context alone.

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 phrase 'to capture redirect code/token' implies a goal but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over zmp_wait_for_login or zmp_set_token. An agent in the OAuth flow has no stated signal about where this step belongs.

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