onenote_save_access_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect (writing to a local token file that subsequent tools depend on), which is genuinely useful. It omits whether an existing token is overwritten, where the file lives, and that a credential is being stored in plaintext locally — meaningful gaps for a credential-persistence operation.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core action first, followed by return format and an example. The headed sections are easy to scan, though the '## Return Format' section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, adding bulk to a single-parameter 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?

For a one-parameter persistence tool with an output schema present, the description covers what it does, the side effect, and the expected response, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining risk area — overwrite behavior and credential-storage implications — is not addressed, so it falls short of fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'token' fully. The description adds light context via the example (truncated JWT format, source from az login/Graph explorer), but no format or validation rules beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Save a Microsoft Graph access token') and explains the consequence ('Persists the token to the local token file so subsequent tools can call the Graph API'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'authenticate', which appears to serve a related credential concern.

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 example comment ('paste a token from az login / Graph explorer') implies the precondition that the agent already possesses a token, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling 'authenticate', no statement of when this should be skipped, and no note on whether it overwrites an existing token.

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