discord_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'logging in' entails operationally - whether it establishes a session, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected outcome looks like. For an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple authentication tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 an authentication tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the authentication mechanism, session management, error conditions, or what successful login enables. Given the complexity of authentication and the lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'token' parameter. While it mentions 'using the configured token', it doesn't explain what format the token should be, where to obtain it, whether it's optional or required despite the schema saying required: [], or what happens if no token is provided. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 the verb ('Logs in') and resource ('to Discord'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on authentication rather than content manipulation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative login methods.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'using the configured token' but doesn't clarify if this is required before other Discord operations, what happens if already logged in, or whether there are other authentication methods available.

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