Enable A Person To Log In

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation), the description adds substantial context: the company_id default from procore_set_config, the requirement to resolve person_id first, the return of Procore's response, and detailed error scenarios (401/403/404). This greatly aids an agent in anticipating failures.

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 dense but every sentence contributes useful information: purpose, prerequisites, defaults, return behavior, error patterns, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with purpose and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 no output schema and six parameters, the description adequately covers the key operational aspects: when to use, prerequisites, required parameters, error semantics, and the exact API endpoint. The only gap is that it does not describe the shape of the successful response payload beyond saying 'Procore's response', but this is acceptable for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema by explaining company_id's fallback default and the need to resolve person_id via a list tool. However, it does not elaborate on email/password/no_invite beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Enable a Person to log in') and specifies the resource and scope ('after they have already been created', 'Acts on the person'). It also names the exact endpoint, distinguishing this from related operations like create or revoke login.

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 provides clear usage context: it must be used after the person is created, and person_id should be resolved with a list tool first. It also mentions the default behavior for company_id via procore_set_config, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like revoke_a_persons_login when not to use.

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