login_into_org

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context: a browser window opens for OAuth and credentials are persisted locally by the CLI. That interactive/persistent side effect is valuable and not derivable from the annotations alone, though auth prerequisites and failure behavior remain unstated.

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?

Purpose, flow, and parameter guidance are front-loaded and readable. The trailing IMPORTANT sentence largely restates the required-parameter fact already implied earlier, which is mild redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return/behavior burden, and it explains the interactive flow and local credential storage. Given the browser-based, stateful nature of the tool, more detail on timing/timeout or what happens on failure would help, but the essentials are present.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain alias semantics (shorthand for subsequent commands) and isProduction semantics (login.salesforce.com vs test.salesforce.com). It does not address the nested 'input' wrapper object, so it is not fully complete.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource (authenticate and login to a Salesforce org) and clarifies the mechanism (via web browser / OAuth). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like logout, list_connected_salesforce_orgs, and set_default_org.

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 selection criteria for the isProduction flag (production/developer vs sandbox/scratch), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it never names sibling alternatives (e.g., list_connected_salesforce_orgs, set_default_org) or when NOT to invoke this tool.

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