login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the session is logged in, that the token is persisted for future sessions, that the profile is returned, and the security-relevant side effect that a typed password remains in the conversation transcript. This is exactly the kind of auth/privacy context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: verb+outcome first, then the preferred alternative and rationale, then the user-interaction obligation. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema auth tool, the description covers the action, the persisted side effect, the returned value, the safer alternative, and the user-consent prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It names email and password and adds genuinely useful semantics about the password (retained in transcript, user must be warned), but says nothing about format, validation, or failure modes for either parameter. Partial compensation against the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource (log in with email + password) and immediately names the sibling alternative `use_token`, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema. It also names the concrete outcome (returns the profile).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer `use_token` with the login line from hyperroute.io,' and explains why (password persists in the transcript, token does not). It further states this tool is 'rarely needed twice' because the token is saved, and gives a concrete precondition (warn the user before asking for a password).

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