Sign in to Drop2Run

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the agent knows this reaches outside the machine. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses browser launching, human approval, token persistence for other tools, and the non-obvious retry-on-pending semantics that would otherwise look like an error. It stops short of token lifetime or what a successful response contains.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and impact, then the mechanics, then the critical retry caveat. Every sentence carries information; only the closing 'no command line' clause is arguably redundant with the browser-first framing.

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 two-parameter tool with no required args and no output schema, the description covers the interaction model, the blocking/wait behavior, and how to interpret an inconclusive result. It does not describe the shape of a success response, but the pending-approval case — the only one that could confuse an agent — is handled.

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 100%, with both 'replace' and 'waitSeconds' fully documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'waits for the person to approve' loosely corresponds to waitSeconds but adds no syntax, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 precise verb and resource ('Signs in through a browser on this machine and stores an access token') and clarifies downstream impact ('which every other tool then uses'). It implicitly contrasts with the code-paste flow ('no command line and no token pasted by hand') but never names the sibling login_code, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance for the tricky case: a 'nothing approved yet' answer is not a failure and the tool should be called again to continue waiting. It also implies the no-prerequisite case ('needs no command line and no token pasted by hand'), but it never states when to prefer this over login_code, leaving one gap.

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