setup_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the two-phase consent flow, the exact scopes requested (Gmail, Calendar, Docs/Sheets read/write, Drive read-only), and that existing accounts must reauthorize to pick up newly added scopes. It does not say whether a browser is launched or where tokens are persisted, which are the only notable gaps.

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?

Three sentences with no filler, and the actionable two-step protocol is front-loaded before the scope inventory. Every sentence carries distinct information (flow, scopes, reauthorization caveat).

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behavior itself, and it does: both phases are described and the consent URL return is implied by 'receive a consent URL.' It could be more complete about the completion-state response (e.g., which account was signed in), but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, and the description largely restates the same protocol (omit `url_or_code` to start, pass the URL/code to finish). The `email` preselect/verify semantics live only in the schema, not the description, so no value is added beyond the baseline.

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: authorize (or reauthorize) a Google account, and names the two modes (first account vs. existing account). It is clearly distinct from the read-only gmail_*/drive_* siblings, but it never distinguishes itself from setup_add_account, leaving an agent to guess which of the two setup tools actually adds an account.

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?

Explicitly states the calling protocol: call without `url_or_code` to begin, then call again with the post-consent localhost URL/code to finish. That is actionable context an agent can follow directly. It stops short of naming an alternative or exclusion (e.g., when to use setup_add_account instead).

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