login

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it opens the MisarMail authorization page, requires user interaction, and saves the API key to ~/.misarmail/config.json. The annotations already cover safety hints (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description adds value without contradicting them.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds useful context. It avoids fluff and clearly explains both the process and the outcome.

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 no output schema, the description explains the outcome (API key delivered and saved) and the interactive flow. It does not mention error cases or behavior when already authenticated, but the schema and annotations cover the key optional parameters and safety profile, making this complete enough for a tool of this complexity.

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 parameters (port, force, app_url) are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-specific guidance, but it does mention the browser-based delivery and config file location, which indirectly relates to the flow. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Authenticate') and names the exact resource ('MisarMail account via browser'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auth_status and logout by describing the interactive browser-based authorization flow.

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 states when to use the tool ('Authenticate with your MisarMail account via browser') and even contrasts it with the manual alternative ('no API key copy-paste needed'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over related auth tools.

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