login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key trait beyond schema/annotations – that a session token is returned and what it authorizes (account and project management) – which is genuinely useful for chaining calls. It says nothing about token lifetime, failure modes, or rate limiting, leaving meaningful gaps for an auth tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the return value and the sibling route. No padding or restatement.

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 correctly steps in to describe the return (a session token and its scope). Combined with the sibling routing it is nearly complete, missing only token lifecycle or error-handling context that an auth entry point would ideally surface.

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?

Both parameters are required and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents email and password. The description names the same two credentials without adding format, validation, or sourcing detail, 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 ('Log in') and resource ('the Anythink platform') plus the credential mechanism (email and password), and explicitly names the login_google alternative. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-duplicate siblings login_direct or signup, so an agent must still infer which login variant applies.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'For Google sign-in, use the login_google tool.' That is a clear when-to-use-the-alternative condition. It stops short of covering the other auth siblings (login_direct, signup, logout) or stating prerequisites such as when this call should be made.

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