complete_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool finishes browser login only when the user provides a code, and that this is a fallback path. It doesn't specify post-conditions, error behavior, or whether it logs the user into an existing auth state, though those are less critical for a one-time login completion flow.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main verb and then efficiently explains the only required trigger condition and fallback context.

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 low-complexity one-parameter auth fallback, the description provides enough context to invoke correctly: when to call it, what input should be supplied, and why it exists. It could mention what success/errors look like after completion, but that gap is minor given the simple action.

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% and already explains that `code` is the one-time auth code from the CocoInbox login success page. The description adds the 'user pastes' interaction context, but that does not materially change the parameter's meaning or format.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Finish browser login' by consuming the user's one-time auth code. It also clearly distinguishes itself as the fallback when OAuth/portal auto-connect did not succeed, which separates it from related sibling auth tools.

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 an explicit trigger condition with 'only when the user pastes the one-time auth code' and context as a fallback after failed auto-connect. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for the normal flow, but the automatic vs fallback distinction is clear enough.

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