auth_start

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions generating a URL and an optional localhost callback listener, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing auth state is replaced, whether a browser is opened, whether the listener blocks, or whether credentials are stored. This is a state-changing tool with minimal behavioral context.

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 clear sentence with no fluff and is front-loaded around the main action. However, for a tool with five parameters, no required fields, and no annotations, it is under-sized and lacks the structure needed to convey usage and parameter guidance effectively.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly. It omits the overall OAuth flow context, the relationship to auth_poll/auth_finish, prerequisites, and the behavioral impact of optional parameters like open_browser and auto_listen_callback. The output schema does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters. It offers only indirect hints: 'generating URL' could relate to redirect_uri, and 'optional localhost callback listener' hints at auto_listen_callback. It does not explain client_id, scopes_csv, open_browser, or redirect_uri meanings, leaving the agent without enough parameter-level understanding.

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 a specific action: 'Start OAuth authorization by generating URL and optional localhost callback listener.' This goes beyond the tool name by specifying the mechanism of how the flow starts, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like auth_poll, auth_finish, and auth_refresh, which handle later stages.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool relative to its many auth-related siblings. It does not mention that auth_poll or auth_finish should follow, nor does it describe prerequisites such as having a client_id or understanding the OAuth flow. Usage is only implied, not explicitly directed.

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