oauth_authorize

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), idempotent (idempotentHint: true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds some context by mentioning 'secure token handling,' which implies security considerations, but it doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'manage' entails beyond the schema's actions. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it provides minimal additional behavioral insight.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with key information ('Manage OAuth 2.0 authorization') and includes relevant details ('user-delegated access to OneDrive and SharePoint files with secure token handling') that earn their place. There's no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the complexity of OAuth management with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the high-level purpose but lacks details on expected outputs, error handling, or how the actions (e.g., 'revoke') interact with the system. The annotations provide safety hints, but more context on behavioral outcomes would help, especially since there's no output schema to clarify return values.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all parameters (e.g., 'action' with enum values, 'scopes' with examples). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how scopes relate to OneDrive/SharePoint or the significance of the 'state' parameter. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to heavily.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Manage OAuth 2.0 authorization for user-delegated access to OneDrive and SharePoint files with secure token handling.' It specifies the verb ('manage'), resource ('OAuth 2.0 authorization'), and scope ('OneDrive and SharePoint files'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_authentication_strengths' or 'call_microsoft_api', which might also involve authentication or API calls.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the general context ('user-delegated access to OneDrive and SharePoint files') but doesn't specify prerequisites, when to choose this over other authentication methods, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'call_microsoft_api' or 'manage_authentication_strengths'. This leaves the agent without clear usage boundaries.

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