ads_mastodon_auth_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema — the code is one-time and is neither logged nor returned. However, it never says what completing the flow produces (a persisted token usable by ads_mastodon_account_list, ads_mastodon_thread_create, etc.), nor what happens on an expired or mismatched state.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the OAuth context, with the security note attached directly to the code. No wasted text.

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 2-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what success yields (token stored and reusable by other Mastodon tools) and how failures surface. It covers the security-sensitive code handling but leaves the outcome undefined.

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 coverage is 50%: 'code' is already described in the schema, and the description only reinforces it as 'one-time ... shown by the instance'. The 'state' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Complete') and resource ('pending Mastodon OAuth connection'), which cleanly separates it from ads_mastodon_auth_start. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly, but 'pending' presupposes it, so an agent can place the tool in the flow without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'pending ... connection with the one-time code shown by the instance' implies the precondition (a flow started via ads_mastodon_auth_start and access approved), but neither the predecessor nor any failure/retry condition is stated. Usage is inferable rather than documented.

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