cassette_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral details: passwords are always server-generated, replacement affects all machines, credentials are verified before writing, and wrong passwords leave existing setups untouched. This exceeds typical descriptions and provides strong safety-relevant context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses four sentences that each add value. There is slight redundancy ('never chosen' and 'never invent one'), but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, and the description covers the key scenarios: normal login, password replacement, and failure behavior. Since output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description is complete enough for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains that password must be the user's server-generated one, that request_new_password triggers replacement, and that confirm_replace is required for that flow. Email is not explicitly explained but is self-evident from the login context.

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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Sign this machine in to Cassette' and 'have a replacement password emailed.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings, as it is the only authentication/login tool among the listed 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 explicitly states when to use the normal password flow ('Pass email plus the generated password') and when to request a replacement ('If they no longer have it... pass request_new_password=true with confirm_replace=true'). It provides clear decision criteria without explicitly naming alternative tools, but the conditions are unambiguous.

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