Sign in with ChatGPT

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

Annotations already convey read-only false, open-world true, idempotent true, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those flags: it returns a user-facing link or code that must be relayed verbatim, sign-in completes in the background, and auth_status is the confirmation mechanism. This is solid but stops short of describing failure modes or timeouts.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and prerequisite, then explains the output and follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description correctly explains what the agent will receive (link or code) and how the user must act on it. It also tells the agent to call auth_status to confirm completion. This is nearly complete, though it could mention what to do if the user fails to complete the sign-in or if the returned link/code expires.

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 are already fully documented with their defaults and meanings. The description reinforces the browser/device distinction without adding materially new parameter-level semantics. The 'relay it verbatim' instruction is about the output, not the parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action (starting sign-in), the resource (the image server's ChatGPT account), and the prerequisite context (required before generating unless an existing sign-in is detected). It also clearly distinguishes sign_in from the sibling auth_status by explaining that auth_status is the follow-up confirmation step.

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 gives clear context: sign-in is needed once before generating, unless an existing sign-in is detected, and auth_status should be called afterward to confirm. It does not explicitly tell the agent to check auth_status before calling sign_in, but the 'unless an existing sign-in is detected' phrasing implies that pre-check. Slightly more explicit when-not-to-use guidance would earn a 5.

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