authorize_webapp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by explaining that codes are single-use, expire in 5 minutes, that the browser must return to the webapp to complete authentication, and that access is then unlocked permanently. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it omits failure/error behavior.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then source context, then the exact action to take, then important constraints, then what must happen afterward. Every sentence earns its place and the critical operational details are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter authorization tool with no annotations, this is complete. It tells the agent how to obtain the code, what chat id to use, the expiry and single-use behavior, and the required follow-up step on the webapp. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where the code comes from (parsing it from the user's 'Authorize' message) and clarifying that chat_id is the owner's Telegram chat id the access is bound to. This enriches the schema's terse property descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Authorize a browser on the Torrent Search webapp via its pairing code.' This clearly identifies the action, the target, and the mechanism, and it is immediately distinguishable from the search/list sibling 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 gives an explicit trigger: the user sends 'Authorize <CODE> for Torrent Search' to the bot, and the agent should take the code from that message and call this tool with the code and chat id. It also notes that codes are single-use and expire after 5 minutes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is strong.

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