use_magic_link

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

The description discloses all behavioral traits: it writes to ~/.honeybook-mcp/sessions.json, it does not open or navigate to the URL, it times out if no live request occurs, and it requires the fetchproxy extension. This adds significant context beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint: false).

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It is well-structured with prerequisites, important notes, and clarifications.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers prerequisites, behavior, timeout condition, interaction with other tools, and what it captures.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'magic_link_url' is used only to derive the portal origin and that the tool does not open it. The schema description coverage is 100%, but the description provides essential semantic context.

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's purpose: 'Capture a HoneyBook client-portal session via the fetchproxy 0.3.0 browser extension.' It specifies the output (snapshots localStorage and header into sessions.json) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only tool that captures sessions.

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 explicit prerequisites (install fetchproxy, open URL in browser) and important usage notes: the header is sniffed on the next live request, so the user must refresh the portal tab while the tool runs. It also mentions that other tools use the most-recently-activated session by default, clarifying when to use this tool.

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