cursor_oauth_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: it starts a browser flow, does not require an API key, returns a login_url for the user, and requires a follow-up call to complete the token exchange. It omits details like flow timeout, where the token is stored, or failure behavior, but the core interaction contract is clear.

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 compact clauses with no waste: the first states purpose and the key constraint, the second states the return value and the required next step. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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 zero-parameter OAuth starter with no output schema, the description covers the essential return (login_url and uuid) and the follow-up action. It could say more about what happens if the user never completes login or whether a browser opens automatically, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document. The description correctly implies no input is required and clarifies that the relevant value (uuid) comes from this call's return, not from the caller.

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 OAuth browser login') and immediately distinguishes itself from cursor_login by noting 'no API key needed'. An agent can identify it as the browser-based OAuth entry point 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?

Explicitly describes the two-step flow: call this, then call cursor_oauth_wait with the returned uuid. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling cursor_login beyond the 'no API key needed' hint, so the exclusion is implied rather than fully stated.

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