share_login_complete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context — credentials are persisted only to local private config — which is useful for a login tool, but it omits session establishment behavior, idempotency, and failure modes.

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?

A single compact sentence with the input modes front-loaded and the credential-storage note trailing. No wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety/open-world profile. The remaining gap is flow positioning (post-share_login_start) and which parameter combination is valid, given zero required parameters.

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 coverage is 0% (bare titles 'Code', 'State', 'Callback Url'), so the description must compensate; it does partially by revealing that callback_url and code+state are alternative input paths. However it says nothing about the role of state, URL parsing expectations, or what happens when all three are null.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 「完成登录」(complete a login) and names the two accepted input modes (完整回调 URL or code+state). It implicitly complements share_login_start without naming it, so an agent can infer the pairing but gets no explicit differentiation.

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 two input modes imply this is the second step of a login flow started elsewhere, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus share_login_start, no prerequisites, and no guidance on which mode to choose or whether it can be re-invoked.

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