iris_login_finish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that the tool waits up to ~60 seconds and how it behaves when the code hasn't been entered (returns a notice and can be retried). It does not explicitly describe success behavior or side effects, but the existence of an output schema may cover the return format. The disclosure of timing and retry is valuable and beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the action and prerequisite; the second explains the wait and retry behavior. Information is front-loaded, with the primary purpose stated before the behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 tool with no parameters, an output schema, and a simple role in the login flow, the description covers the essential usage context. It explains the prerequisite (iris_login was called), the triggering condition (code entered), the wait behavior, and the retry logic. Nothing critical is missing that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema has no properties to describe, and the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. Any context about the sign-in flow is already covered by the purpose and usage guidelines, so the parameter semantics are trivially satisfied.

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 clearly states the tool completes a device-code sign-in initiated by iris_login(), using a specific verb (complete) and resource (sign-in). It immediately distinguishes itself from iris_login, which starts the flow, and from other sibling tools like iris_auth_status and draft management functions, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 explicitly states when to call it ('after entering the code in the browser') and provides retry guidance ('can simply be called again' if the code isn't entered). While it implies the prerequisite of having called iris_login(), it does not explicitly name alternative tools for excluding use cases, such as iris_auth_status for checking status. However, the flow is so clearly delineated that an agent would not confuse it with other tools.

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