setup_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers: a single-use 127.0.0.1 address with 5-minute expiry, the three browser routes, the exact data path (browser -> loopback -> process -> 0600 config file), pre-save verification against Sleeper, immediate effect without restart, and that the token never appears in a tool result. This is unusually complete behavioral context for a security-sensitive operation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the security flow, routes, and argument are laid out in a tight, ordered narrative. Given the complexity and risk of this operation, every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 not be described; the description instead covers the entire setup flow, its security properties, expiry, and the one argument's side effects. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: enable_writes is explained as switching on lineups, waivers and trades, plus the critical caveat that every write tool still dry-runs unless called with confirm=True. This adds meaning well beyond the bare boolean in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Start a one-time local page for adding your Sleeper token.' It is clearly distinct from the many sibling tools (e.g. auth_status) in that it is a setup/onboarding action, but it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with a sibling like auth_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives explicit usage direction with an alternative: 'Use this instead of ever pasting the token into the conversation.' This is clear selection guidance, but it does not state when-not to use it (e.g. when a token is already configured) or point to auth_status for checking state.

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