login

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that it opens a server browser (interactive), optionally uses environment credentials, and finishes with status. Yet it doesn't explain what 'status' means, whether it blocks, or how it affects an existing session – significant gaps for a state-changing operation.

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 concise, a single sentence with three clauses: action, optional credential use, and completion with status. It front-loads the primary purpose. No wasted words, though the phrase 'Finish with status' is slightly ambiguous.

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 login tool with no params and no output schema, the description covers the basics but leaves out critical context: what happens if already logged in, whether it requires a specific environment setup, and what the status output actually contains. Given the interactive nature and potential side effects, this is incomplete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds context about environmental credentials, which is not a parameter but relevant operational detail. No further parameter explanation is needed.

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 clear action: 'Open the server browser for manual Marriott login' – a specific verb and resource. It also mentions optional credential usage and finishing with status, which adds context. It is distinct from sibling tools like logout and recover_session, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied: it's for logging in manually. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like recover_session, or what to do if already logged in. The mention of 'manual' suggests a fallback but doesn't spell out conditions.

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