Sign in to Antideploy

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

Despite the annotations (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already covering safety, the description adds substantial context: the token persists to ~/.antideploy, the token is never shown to the agent, it waits for approval, an account is created if none exists, and it is revocable at a URL. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral detail.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence carries flow or behavioral information. It is somewhat dense with nested parentheticals, but not padded with waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what each call returns (link and code, then the connected account) and how to surface it to the user. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the single `force` parameter is already documented as starting a new login to switch accounts. The description adds flow context but does not further explain `force` beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Connect this machine to the user's Antideploy account.' It is clearly distinct from siblings like logout, list_applications, and deploy, and an agent grasps the intent immediately.

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?

Explicitly sequences usage: first call returns a link/code, second call waits for approval and saves the login, later calls confirm the connection. It also states the exclusion behavior (if the user declines, stop and don't start another unless asked).

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