sso_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say linking replaces an existing SSO method, whether the prior method is unlinked, or what external provider round-trip the call triggers. Silently destructive behavior on an account is exactly what should be spelled out.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. However, the brevity here is under-specification rather than economy: the second line is a raw HTTP path that conveys little to an agent choosing a tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be described, which keeps the required scope modest. Still, for a destructive, open-world mutation with a nested required body and an opaque query parameter, the definition leaves out auth requirements, the OAuth callback context, and any side effects.

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% and the single parameter is a nested required body with two required fields, so the description carries the burden and fails to. It says nothing about providerType (the enum is self-documenting) and nothing about "query", whose only schema note ("POST /auth/sso > SSO > CALLBACK_URL?query") is cryptic and unexplained in the description.

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?

"Link sso-method to account" gives a verb (link) and a resource, so the general intent is discernible, but "sso-method" is internal jargon and the appended "POST /sso" restates the endpoint rather than clarifying the effect. It does not distinguish this from sso_get_list beyond the vague notion of linking, leaving the agent to guess at the concrete outcome.

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?

There is no statement of when this should be invoked, no prerequisites (e.g. an authenticated session or a completed OAuth callback), and no alternative named. The sibling sso_get_list exists but the definition never says whether to read first or how the two relate.

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