share_login_start

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds genuinely useful context: this tool does not itself authenticate, and a human browser step plus a callback URL is required before share_login_complete can be used. It stops short of describing URL lifetime, whether state is stored, or what happens on failure.

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 front-loads the action and then gives the follow-up in the second clause; nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the human-in-the-loop handoff to share_login_complete is covered. The remaining gap is the undefined redirect_uri, the one input the caller must reason about.

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% and the description never mentions redirect_uri at all, so the single optional parameter is undocumented everywhere. An agent cannot tell whether redirect_uri is its own callback target, must match a registered value, or can be omitted safely.

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 uses a specific verb + resource ("生成 jAccount 登录 URL") and explicitly names share_login_complete as the continuation, so the agent can distinguish this initiation step from the completion step. It does not differentiate itself from other URL-generating siblings such as share_lesson_sync_login_url, which keeps it from a 5.

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 lays out the operational sequence: generate the URL, the user logs in through a browser, then the callback URL is copied and handed to share_login_complete. This makes the usage context clear, though it states no explicit exclusions or preconditions (e.g. already being logged in).

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