zyta_login

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses behavior: access_token can be passed as parameter or via env variable; email+password performs POST /auth/login; device flow opens browser and requires dashboard. It is transparent about dependencies and alternatives, though it does not mention session handling post-login.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the most critical information (mandatory usage). Each sentence serves a purpose: prerequisite, ordered options, fallback advice. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools (zyta_auth_status), the description covers prerequisites, methods, and fallbacks comprehensively. It does not detail post-login behavior, but that is likely handled by zyta_auth_status.

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 description adds significant context beyond the schema: it explains the priority and rationale for each parameter (e.g., 'access_token manual (alternativa al device flow)', 'Con password hace POST /auth/login (sin depender del dashboard)'). This helps an agent choose the right input for the situation.

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 tool is required before any other if no session exists, and lists three authentication methods (access_token, email+password, device flow). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the prerequisite for all others.

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 when to use ('obligatorio antes de cualquier otra herramienta si no hay sesión') and provides alternatives and fallbacks (if device flow pending, use email+password or npx zyta-mcp-login).

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