typst_auth_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the concrete endpoint hit and that a Turnstile/CAPTCHA challenge triggers automatic cookie/browser fallback. It omits what happens on failure, whether credentials are persisted, session lifetime, and what the tool returns or how the resulting session is consumed by sibling tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and destination, then enumerates the mechanisms. It is dense but every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the name.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the input side well but leaves the result side blank — whether a session token is stored, returned, or shared with sibling typst_* tools, and failure modes. An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict what it gets back or what to do next.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real mapping value by tying the two auth paths to their parameters — POST /v1/auth/signin corresponds to email/password, and the named __Http-typst-session cookie corresponds to sessionCookie, while the 'fallback on challenge' clause explains useBrowserFallback.

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 (authenticate) against a specific resource (typst.app) and names the exact mechanisms: direct email/password API login to POST /v1/auth/signin, or the __Http-typst-session cookie. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling typst_auth_status, which checks state rather than establishing it.

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 presents two authentication paths (credential login vs. session cookie) and notes a browser fallback, which implies context for choosing an approach. However, it never says when to prefer email/password over a session cookie, whether auth is a prerequisite for the other typst_* tools, or when this should be called rather than typst_auth_status.

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