login_direct

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key trait that it bypasses billing login and requires pre-existing credentials, but omits where credentials are persisted, whether they overwrite an existing profile, and any security/expiry considerations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does followed by when to use it. No filler or 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?

For a 5-parameter authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it never explains what the call returns (e.g., a session token or stored profile confirmation) or the role of the profile/baseUrl parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions. The description only gestures at orgId, token, and apiKey and adds no format or override semantics, 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 ('Store credentials directly for a project') and clarifies the mechanism ('bypasses billing login'), which helps separate it from the 'login' and 'login_google' siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use condition: 'when you already have an org ID and API key or JWT token.' This gives clear context for selecting the tool, though it stops short of naming the alternative (e.g., 'otherwise use login') or stating exclusions.

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