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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the code is single-use, expires in 10 minutes, is embedded in the command that consumes it, and grants the CLI the same permissions as this connection — a significant privilege-escalation fact an agent needs. It omits revocation guidance and what happens after expiry.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause carries information (package name, no browser, single-use, TTL, privilege scope). The third sentence is slightly long but earns its place by explaining the resulting session's authority.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return ('the code inside the command that uses it') and the credential's lifetime and scope. It is nearly complete; only post-expiry/revocation behavior is unaddressed, which matters little for a low-complexity 0-param tool.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4; the description correctly adds no spurious parameter talk.

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 action (make a one-time sign-in code) for a specific resource (the @deltabreen/share command-line tool), and explicitly frames it as browserless CLI sign-in. That scope cleanly separates it from siblings like create_secret_handoff, issue_request_code, and the request-page 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 gives a clear when-to-use context: pairing the CLI on a person's own computer without a browser. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions (e.g. not for browser sessions, not for other clients), so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not bar.

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