ads_mastodon_auth_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the call produces an authorization_url for an out-of-band browser step and that the handshake is PKCE-based, but it omits whether an application is registered on the instance, how long the pending state/code remains valid, and what happens if the flow is abandoned.

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, zero filler. The action and its scope come first, and the required follow-up step is placed immediately after where the agent will act on it.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does name the key return value (authorization_url) plus the follow-up code requirement, which is the critical information for a two-step auth flow. It falls short of fully describing the return payload and the pending-connection lifecycle, which matters for a tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema, including instance_url format and the read:follows scope note. The description adds only the 'one instance per call' framing, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Start a Mastodon OAuth 2 + PKCE account connection' — with the scope limited to 'one instance.' It also distinguishes itself from the completion step by noting the flow ends with a one-time code, though it does not name ads_mastodon_auth_complete explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear operational sequence: call this, open the returned authorization_url, then finish with the one-time code. This implicitly routes the agent to the sibling completion tool, but no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are stated.

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