UserAuthLoginPupil

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

The description adds valuable security behavior beyond annotations, warning that the tool returns a login token, requires product/security approval for public enablement, and that the token must never be logged, cached, or returned outside the direct result. This meaningfully supplements the existing annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: the purpose is stated in one sentence, and the security warning follows in a clear, structured block. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core outcome and sensitive nature, but it is incomplete for confident invocation: it does not explain the role of bodyPupilId, whether it is required, what token format to expect, or how the returned token should be used. For a single-parameter auth tool with no output schema, one clear parameter reference would make it fully complete.

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 by explaining the parameter role. It only says 'Authenticate a pupil' but does not clarify that bodyPupilId identifies the pupil to authenticate, nor whether it is required. The parameter name helps, but the description itself adds no parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Authenticate a pupil and return a login token.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling UserAuthLoginTeacher by specifying pupils, and from UserAuthCheckAuthToken by describing token creation rather than validation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when authenticating a pupil. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling names and the pupil/teacher distinction make the intended use reasonably obvious.

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