supportpages_init

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 'local' return state, browser-approval behaviour when a device is not signed in, the fallback approval link plus comparison code, background sign-in completion with supportpages_status for polling, and the 'project_required' response shape.

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?

Despite being a dense multi-sentence paragraph, it is front-loaded with the core action first, then the branch conditions in the order an agent will hit them. It is longer than most definitions but nearly every sentence carries a distinct branch or constraint.

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 multi-step auth/registration workflow with four optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the full state machine (local, approval link, project_required), prerequisites, follow-up calls, and safety rules. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears missing.

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 already 100%, so the 3 baseline applies, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains host_local's behavioural consequence (folder becomes hosted while saved files stay in place), workspace's use only 'when discovery is ambiguous', and project_id's role in re-calling the tool.

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 compound verb+resource: 'Sign this device in to SupportPages.io if needed and link the current workspace to a help centre.' This distinguishes it from siblings like supportpages_bind_workspace, supportpages_status and supportpages_create_project, which are named as alternatives.

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?

It gives explicit conditional routing: the host_local=true case means the user asked to sign in; on 'project_required' the agent should ask the user which help centre, then re-call with project_id, or call supportpages_create_project first; and it states a hard prohibition ('Never accept a token in chat or approve for the user').

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