managed_sign_in

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that computedData is encrypted but says nothing about auth requirements, session lifecycle, failure behavior, or whether the payload must be built first (e.g., via build_sign_in_payload).

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 efficient sentence with the action and key input front-loaded. It is well-sized, though thin enough that it could carry more useful detail without bloat.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate but does not. For a sign-in tool that presumably establishes a session or returns credentials, omitting return/behavior details leaves an agent without what it needs to call this correctly.

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 the schema already documents both parameters with meaningful detail (chain IDs, AES-256-CBC encryption). The description adds only the notion of 'encrypted computedData payload,' which is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Sign in) and resource (GDEX managed-custody system), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like auth_login, oauth_login, or build_sign_in_payload, so it falls short of full sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the auth_login/oauth_login siblings, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer usage context entirely.

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