Complete Obsideo signup

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

Discloses detailed side effects beyond the annotations: local Ed25519 keypair generation, only the public half being sent, S3 credential storage at ~/.obsideo/mcp.json, credential/keypair rotation on re-run, no-overlap behavior, and a clear do-not-rerun warning. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs.

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 primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent clause earns its place by conveying a distinct operational or safety requirement. Despite the density of caveats, there is no filler or repetition.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, it covers the critical operational facts: local key generation, credential file location, rotation behavior, and non-idempotence. The main gap is that it does not state the prerequisite signup_start step or how the tool knows whether the user is claiming a trial versus creating a new account.

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 only 50%: code has a description but email does not. The description reinforces that the code is emailed and tied to signup, but it does not clarify email semantics or how the trial-vs-new-account path is determined from the parameters. It adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but does not fully compensate for the missing email documentation.

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 action and resource: 'Complete signup with the emailed code.' It also clarifies two use paths (trial claim vs new account), which helps distinguish it from signup_start and verify. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts those sibling tools, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Provides concrete when-to-use context for two scenarios—claiming a trial and creating a new account—and explains what changes in each. It lacks explicit exclusion guidance, such as 'use signup_start to initiate' or 'do not use verify here,' but the described conditions are clear enough for an agent to infer the intended usage.

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