login_with_password

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of disclosure. It mentions the tool is a 'fallback programmatic login' but does not describe side effects, session behavior, or security implications. The fact that it is a login implies authentication, but details like whether it overwrites existing sessions are absent. This is a minimal but acceptable disclosure for a simple login.

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, front-loaded with purpose and guidance, and contains zero filler. Every part adds value.

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 simple login tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it covers when to use it, the type of login, and the preferred paths. However, it lacks any mention of return values or post-login state, which could be useful but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the parameters 'email' and 'password' at all. While the schema provides format and minLength, the description adds no extra meaning, such as what valid credentials look like or any constraints beyond the schema. This is a shortfall given the low coverage.

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's function as a fallback programmatic login using email and password, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'login' and 'connect' by explicitly noting preferred alternatives (login/connect portal or MCP OAuth).

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 gives explicit guidance: it is a fallback method, should be used only when the user explicitly pastes credentials, and it names preferred alternatives (login/connect portal or MCP OAuth). This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus others.

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