login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: an interactive browser approval flow is launched and no other tool will ever do so. It omits whether the call blocks until approval, what happens on timeout/denial, and how long the resulting credentials persist, which are relevant for a stateful 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?

Short and front-loaded, with the mechanism and the browser side effect stated first. The second and third sentences restate the same point about browsers not appearing unexpectedly, which is mildly redundant but reinforces an important contract.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description covers the critical behaviors an agent needs before invoking an interactive auth flow. The only gap, the org parameter's semantics, is minor for a tool that is optional-parameter and single-purpose.

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 0% and the single 'org' parameter has no description or enum; the prose only says 'to an org' without stating the accepted format or what happens when it is omitted (the schema shows default null). The description adds some meaning by implying the target org scope, but leaves the parameter's optionality and format unspecified.

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 gives a specific verb (authenticate) and resource (an org) plus the exact mechanism (SSO device authorization with browser approval). No sibling tool performs authentication, and the phrase 'opens a browser for approval' makes the side effect unmistakable, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

It clearly states the trigger condition: queries fail with a message telling you to call this first, and this is the only tool that opens a browser. It does not address adjacent cases an agent might face, such as switching org afterwards (use_org) or checking existing credentials (token_status, org_status), but the core when-to-use guidance is explicit.

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