Sign in to EDHEC

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare non-readonly, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the blocking wait of up to 5 minutes, that a visible browser window appears and the human performs the sign-in, and that ePrinting is signed in as a side effect while Aurion and food services reuse the token. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then timing, then side effects, then invocation constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information and none restates the title or annotations.

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, human-in-the-loop tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, how long it blocks, what happens in the browser, what other services get signed in, and the credential-handling prohibition. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is absent.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter schema applies. No parameter detail is needed or missing.

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 concrete action (open a visible Chrome window) and the specific resource/session (EDHEC Microsoft SSO), then names the downstream systems that inherit the session. An agent can distinguish this interactive login tool from every sibling listed without opening a schema.

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 an explicit trigger condition — 'Use only when another tool says it is not signed in' — which also serves as a when-not rule, preventing proactive invocation. It additionally constrains agent behavior ('Never type credentials for the user'), so correct invocation conditions are unambiguous.

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