acunetix_login

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that email/password can fall back to environment variables, the token is stored in memory and automatically used by subsequent tools, and that the system has a single-session constraint which will log out other online sessions. This reveals important side effects and authentication behavior.

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 a concise bulleted list with the main purpose front-loaded. Each line provides valuable information (env var fallback, token storage, single-session warning, alternative recommendation) without any waste or redundancy.

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 login tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: login purpose, session establishment, parameter fallback, side effects, and the recommended alternative. However, it omits any mention of the otp_token parameter and does not describe the response or error cases, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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?

The description explains the email and password parameters, including the env var fallback when omitted. However, it does not mention the otp_token parameter at all, and the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). Thus, while it adds meaning for two of three parameters, the third is left undocumented, creating a partial 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to log into Acunetix and establish a session (method 2). It distinguishes this from the alternative acunetix_use_api_key by noting the single-session constraint and official recommendation, so the agent can differentiate between sibling tools.

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 explicitly says the official recommended approach is acunetix_use_api_key because it has no single-session constraint, providing clear guidance on when to use this login method versus the alternative. This is direct and actionable usage guidance.

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