Connect to Textile Designer AI

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/openWorld, so the description usefully adds that a browser opens automatically and that the server keeps polling in the background. That background-polling and browser-launch behavior is real context not captured in structured fields. It stops short of describing token lifetime or failure/expiry 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?

Three tight sentences, action verb front-loaded, no filler. Each clause carries load: what it does, what it returns, and the two follow-up options.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately states the return shape (URL and code) and the follow-up paths, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is adequate for a 2-parameter, no-required-params login starter, though it omits failure/expiry handling.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by tying the parameters to workflow outcomes ('the browser opens automatically unless open_browser is false', 'set wait_seconds to block until linked'). It adds intent, though not values beyond the schema defaults.

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 and resource ('Start the device-code login') and immediately describes the concrete return ('a URL and a code'), so the agent knows exactly what this tool initiates. It also names the sibling 'whoami' as the confirmation path, distinguishing it from other auth-adjacent 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?

Gives clear contextual routing: browser opens automatically unless open_browser is false, and the agent is told either to call whoami to confirm or to set wait_seconds to block until linked. It does not state explicit when-not conditions (e.g. what to do if already authenticated), so it falls short of a 5.

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