Finish signing in

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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the call blocks/waits briefly while the auth window is open, which tells the agent this is a synchronous completion step rather than a fire-and-forget one. It omits failure modes (e.g., behavior if no sign-in was started or the wait expires).

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?

One sentence with zero filler; the action and its prerequisite are front-loaded, and the parenthetical caveat about waiting is placed where it is most useful.

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 single-parameter terminal step in a login flow with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, where it sits in the sequence, and that it blocks. Remaining gaps (outcome on failure, whether the session state is inspectable afterward) are minor given the annotations and the sibling axcel_login_diagnose that likely covers troubleshooting.

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% and the single optional waitSeconds parameter is fully documented in the schema (default 15, max 120). The description alludes to waiting qualitatively ('waits briefly') but adds no bound, default, or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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 pair (confirm the sign-in, save the session) on a specific resource, and names the sibling it must follow (axcel_login_begin). An agent can distinguish it from axcel_login_begin, axcel_login_diagnose, and axcel_login_import_cookie_file without opening any schema.

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 states the prerequisite and ordering: this is the step that follows axcel_login_begin. It gives clear context for when to call it, but offers no exclusions or guidance versus the other login-family alternatives such as axcel_login_diagnose or axcel_login_import_cookie_file.

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