Login to Bridge

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which align with login being a state-changing action. The description adds 'interactive login' hinting at potential need for user interaction, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., session creation, token management) or failure modes. With annotations partially covering safety, the description adds modest context.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose: action, resource, required inputs, conditional input. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 is a login action that likely returns a session or token, yet no output schema or return behavior is described. Given it has no output schema and annotations mark it as destructive, more completeness would help (e.g., what to expect on success/failure). Sibling tools show a rich ecosystem, so login context matters.

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%, so the description bears full responsibility. It names all three parameters (user, password, totp) and adds conditional semantics for TOTP ('if 2FA is required'). However, it does not explain the format of 'user' (already in schema) or 'password', nor how to obtain TOTP. This adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for zero schema descriptions.

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 it performs interactive login against Proton Mail Bridge, distinguishing it from siblings like proton_bridge_logout, proton_bridge_status, etc. The verb 'login' combined with resource 'Proton Mail Bridge' is specific and unambiguous.

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 including TOTP if 2FA is required, giving conditional guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like proton_drive_auth_login or proton_bridge_accounts, nor does it provide prerequisites (e.g., Bridge must be running) or error scenarios.

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