graph_auth_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states authentication but does not disclose side effects, safety, or what happens on repeated calls. The phrase 'only needed if not already configured' hints at idempotency but lacks detail.

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?

The description is one sentence, front-loaded with purpose and usage context. It is concise and waste-free, though it could be slightly expanded with parameter hints.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description lacks details on authentication outcome, success/failure indicators, or prerequisites. It is minimally complete.

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 100% with parameter descriptions, so the agent can infer meaning. However, the description adds no extra context about the parameters (e.g., which are required for flow discovery). Baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Authenticate' and the resource 'Lamatic GraphMCP', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like dev_auth_login and kit_auth_login by specifying GraphMCP context. Purpose 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 explains when to use the tool: 'only needed if not already configured via environment variables'. This provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives among sibling auth tools.

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