Emit LINE Login OAuth code scaffold

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, consistent with generating code. The description adds detail: it returns code with placeholders, lists required env vars, and explains the scaffold components. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear value proposition and uses a structured Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure (framework, scopes, code, env_vars_required, notes) and placeholders, covering all needed context for a tool that generates code.

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?

Despite only 17% schema coverage, the description's Args section details each parameter (framework, scopes, with_pkce, with_friendship_check, with_refresh, typescript) with defaults and options, adding significant meaning beyond the minimal schema.

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 generates a LINE Login OAuth 2.1 flow scaffold, listing the steps (authorize URL, token exchange, verify, userinfo, optional refresh, friendship check) and notes it replaces 10 separate tool calls. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'This replaces 10 separate OAuth tool calls with one paste-ready code block — Claude Code's superpower', indicating when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the usage context is clear and no alternatives are needed given siblings are unrelated.

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