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

Annotations declare a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the operation 'grants the CLI a full account session,' which is a security-relevant consequence worth surfacing. It does not detail failure behavior for an invalid or expired code, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, each contributing distinct information (effect, precondition, follow-up step). No repetition of the title or wasted phrasing.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, security consequence, parameter origin, and the required follow-up command. Missing only edge-case behavior (what happens with an already-used or invalid code), which is minor given annotation coverage of safety traits.

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%, so the description carries the burden for user_code. It helpfully identifies the value's origin ('printed by the user's current drawcall auth login command') but adds no format, length, or validity details, and the schema only declares it as a bounded string.

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 ('Approve a pending Drawcall CLI login') and immediately clarifies the scope via 'as your connected account.' An agent can tell exactly what action occurs, and the sibling tools (read_skills, search_skills) are unrelated, so no differentiation burden exists.

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?

Provides clear procedural context: approve only the user_code from the user's current 'drawcall auth login' command, then run 'drawcall auth complete'. This is effectively a when-to-use plus an implicit when-not ('Only approve...'). No named alternative tool exists to route against, so a 4 is appropriate.

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