authenticate_server

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that credentials are host-injected and that passwords must never be passed as arguments — non-obvious, security-relevant behavior. Annotations already flag non-read-only/open-world/non-destructive, so the remaining gap (session lifetime, failure behavior) is minor rather than disqualifying.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the prerequisite, and the security constraint placed last where it reads as a warning. No 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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, but the definition omits the only input (profileId), where profiles come from, and what a successful call establishes for subsequent tools. Adequate for a login tool, yet with a clear gap around the sole parameter.

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% and the single parameter profileId is never mentioned, so an agent gets no explanation of what a profile is, how to obtain an ID, or that it is the only required input. With no param documentation anywhere, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (log in) and resource (server) and clarifies the credential source, which distinguishes it from the surrounding import/upload/discover siblings. It stops short of saying what authentication yields or how it relates to other server tools, but the action itself is 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 clause 'does not require a prior browser login' is a genuine prerequisite statement that tells an agent this call is self-sufficient. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when discover_server vs this tool applies), but the context it supplies is clear rather than merely implied.

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