device_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the owner must manually interact (visit URI, enter code) and that the tool requires polling for completion. However, it does not detail potential error states or rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, then clear instructions, followed by a parameter definition. Every sentence adds value, and the 'Args' section is neatly formatted.

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 an OAuth flow and the absence of an output schema, the description should explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., verification_uri, user_code, device_session_id). It implies these exist but does not confirm, leaving the agent to infer.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the allowed provider values ('google' or 'github'), whereas the schema only shows a default and no enums. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 function: starting an OAuth device flow for owner verification. It uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('OAuth device flow'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'device_poll' by mentioning polling as a follow-up step.

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 clear usage context by instructing the agent to have the owner visit a verification URI and enter a code, then poll with 'device_poll'. It implies when to use this tool (to initiate authorization) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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