cassette_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the side effect of password replacement across all machines, the need for user confirmation, and the crucial safety property that credentials are verified before any write occurs, leaving an existing working setup untouched. This is strong behavioral transparency.

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 concise yet information-dense; each sentence earns its place. It front-loads the primary action, then covers the alternative flow, the critical constraint about server-generated passwords, and the safety guarantee. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 login tool with no annotations, an output schema available, and four parameters, the description provides complete context: when to call it, what parameters to use, what side effects occur, and what safety behavior to expect. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates exceptionally well. It explains that email plus the server-generated password is the normal path, that password is never user-chosen, and that request_new_password and confirm_replace must be passed together to replace the password. This makes all four parameters and their interrelationships clear.

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 clearly states the tool's core purpose: signing the current machine in to Cassette, with an explicit alternative for password replacement. It names the specific verb and resource, and it is unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like cassette_ingest_media or cassette_run_job, so an agent can easily tell when this is the login tool.

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 explicit and detailed usage instructions, including the requirement to ask the user for their server-generated password, never invent one, and the exact condition for requesting a replacement password with both request_new_password=true and confirm_replace=true. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but no sibling appears to handle authentication, so this is a minor gap.

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