use_magic_link

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that it reads localStorage, writes to ~/.honeybook-mcp/sessions.json, does not sniff live requests, does not navigate to the magic link, and works regardless of page idle state. This is fully consistent with readOnlyHint=false, so no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by prerequisites, mechanism, output location, inter-tool dependency, and a parameter caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted 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 tool's complexity as a setup/authentication capture, the description covers prerequisites, the exact mechanism, the file output, how other tools depend on it, and parameter semantics. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it produces.

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?

The schema already provides a detailed description of magic_link_url with 100% coverage. The tool description adds behavioral nuance by explicitly stating the argument is used only to derive the portal origin/cache key and that the tool does NOT open or navigate to the URL, which is valuable beyond 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Capture a HoneyBook client-portal session via the fetchproxy 0.3.0 browser extension.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools, which consume sessions, by explaining that it is the setup mechanism that writes session data for other tools to use.

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 gives explicit prerequisites (install extension, open signed-in tab, leave it open) and explains how all other tools use the most-recently-activated session by default. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough to guide the agent.

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