authenticate

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

Describes the OAuth flow, providing URL and code, and mentions return values (success/error). No annotations exist, so description must carry burden. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., token storage, session state) which are relevant for agent 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?

Two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds information. No redundancy.

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?

Tool is simple (0 params, output schema exists). Description covers flow and return values. However, does not mention that this is a prerequisite for other tools, which is important context given sibling list.

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?

No parameters, schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline 4 as per guidelines. Description adds value by explaining the device code flow, though not needed for parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it starts Microsoft authentication flow using device code for Graph API. Verb 'start' and resource 'authentication flow' are specific. Does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but siblings are all notebook-related operations, so purpose is distinct.

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?

Description implies usage when authentication is needed (device code flow), but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Context suggests it's a prerequisite for sibling tools, but not stated.

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