create_login_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: default cookie reuse (Continue-as), force_reauth as an opt-out, poll+sse always being on, and the absence of SMS. It does not fully cover side effects, expiration/link lifecycle, or return payload, which prevents a 5.

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?

Four short, information-dense sentences with no filler. Purpose leads, then options, then defaults and exclusions. Every clause earns its place and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, some important context is missing: return value shape, the meaning of state, how ttl_seconds relates to 'one-time', and any prerequisites or error cases. Still, the core invocation intent is reasonably covered.

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 must compensate. It does map to many parameters: methods enum values, force_reauth, reuse_session via default cookie behavior, and webhook/redirect/form_post/post_message params. But state and ttl_seconds are not explained, and URI formats are only implied.

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?

Uses a specific, vivid verb ('Mint') and a concrete object ('one-time human login URL'). It also enumerates notify methods and an explicit exclusion ('No SMS'), making the tool's function distinctive among siblings without needing to name them.

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 context for when to call the tool and what it produces, plus an exclusion ('No SMS'). However, it gives no guidance about alternatives such as get_login_status, retry_login_webhook, or webhook_allowlist_add, and no when-not-to-use criteria.

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