Sign in with a code

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds the genuinely useful behavior beyond them: a two-phase interactive handoff with a human, a long-polling wait, and persistence of the resulting token. It does not spell out what happens to an existing token (the schema's 'replace' parameter carries that), so it is not fully self-contained.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, and the disqualifying condition (no browser available) is front-loaded before the mechanics. Every clause contributes information an agent needs to drive the flow.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the first call returns (a short code and a URL to enter it at) and what the second call accomplishes (wait for approval, store the token). Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so 'replace' and 'waitSeconds' are already documented with their semantics and bounds. The description only alludes to 'call it again to wait', adding no syntax or default detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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') and immediately bounds the scenario ('where no browser can be opened on this machine — a container, a remote host'), which separates it from the sibling 'login' tool. An agent can pick this over 'login' without opening either schema.

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 usage condition is explicit and memorable (headless/remote environment with no browser), and the description explains the required call pattern: call once to get a code, call again to wait and store the token. It stops short of naming 'login' as the alternative for browser-capable machines, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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