sse_add_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says 'Add authentication'. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies project files, what authentication mechanism is used, whether an api_key is required, or what the side effects are. For a mutation-like operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical 'Pro feature' adds useful gating information without bloating the text. Every word earns its place.

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 tool that likely performs a security-relevant modification to SSE streams, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about required inputs, the authentication method, how the operation affects existing streams, and what a successful invocation produces. Even with a simple two-parameter schema, the agent is left guessing about core execution details.

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 50%, and the description does not help clarify either parameter. 'api_key' is left completely undocumented, and 'directory' only has the generic schema description 'Project directory'. The description fails to explain how api_key is used for authentication or what directory scope is expected.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Add authentication to SSE streams'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools sse_generate_server and sse_generate_client by signaling a modification operation rather than generation. However, it does not explicitly clarify what kind of authentication is being added or how it relates to those sibling workflows.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auth_generate_jwt or sse_generate_server. The only contextual hint is 'Pro feature', which implies an entitlement requirement but does not explain the expected workflow or when this should be invoked. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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