edubase_post_user_login

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds the key behavioral trait of idempotent-like behavior (returning existing link if settings match), which is not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits like permissions needed, side effects of creation, or error conditions, so the added value is moderate.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a critical behavioral nuance. There is no superfluous text, and the key information is front-loaded. It is an excellent example of efficient writing.

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 7 parameters, a required 'user', and a comprehensive input schema with descriptions. An output schema exists (not shown), likely documenting return values. The description covers the core behavior (creation and reuse) but does not elaborate on error handling, edge cases, or the exact meaning of 'same settings'. Given the richness of the schema and output schema, the description is adequate but slightly incomplete.

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?

All 7 parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the schema already provides the meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'settings' affect link reuse, which is vague. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb 'generate' and the resource 'login link', and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_user_login and delete_user_login by focusing on creation. The additional detail about returning existing valid links further clarifies the specific behavior.

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 mentions that existing valid links are reused, which provides some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_user_login for retrieval), nor does it provide contraindications or prerequisites. This lack of explicit guidance limits its helpfulness for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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