setup_wizard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does reveal that the tool involves an interactive sequence (paste, confirm, pick), which implies user involvement and likely prompts. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether state is modified, or what happens on completion.

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 very short and front-loaded: 'Guided setup' immediately conveys the type, and the colon-separated steps give the core flow with zero wasted words.

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 zero-parameter interactive wizard the description is minimally viable: an agent can understand the general flow. But it omits return behavior, potential side effects, and any relationship to sibling setup/connection tools, which matters for correct selection in a larger toolset.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing to document. The description's mention of 'paste', 'confirm', and 'pick' suggests these are interactive prompts rather than schema parameters, which is helpful context and consistent with the empty schema.

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 is specific: it names a guided setup flow and lists the three concrete steps (paste flow URL, confirm login, pick assistant). It is clear enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling configuration tools like configure_session or ensure_connection.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies first-time setup through the word 'Guided setup', but never states exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where one of the sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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