opencode_provider_oauth_authorize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing beyond the verb. It does not state that initiation typically yields an authorization URL/token, that a callback is expected next, or whether state is mutated server-side.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the under-specification problem rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 an OAuth-initiation tool with a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits the flow context (callback follow-up) and any parameter meaning an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% for three parameters, and the description only vaguely implies providerId. The 'inputs' object and numeric 'method' parameter are completely unexplained, so the description fails to 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 ('Start') and resource ('OAuth authorization') tied to a provider, so the action is clear. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related siblings opencode_provider_oauth_callback, opencode_provider_auth_methods, or opencode_auth_set, which an agent must disambiguate between.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling auth tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as first checking auth methods. The multi-step OAuth flow (this tool then oauth_callback) is left entirely implicit.

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