chaprola_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It prominently warns that the previous API key is invalidated, which is a critical side effect. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors such as session expiration or response format, though the core destructive behavior is well covered.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and a critical warning without any filler. Every word contributes meaningful information, making it highly efficient.

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 login tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and a key side effect. It implies the return of a new API key, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the outcome. Minor gaps exist around response structure, but the description is adequate for invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (username and passcode). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (login) and the outcome (get a new API key), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like chaprola_register or chaprola_hello. The warning about invalidating the previous key adds further clarity about the tool's core function.

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 implies usage for existing users needing a new API key, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like register or check_username. The warning about invalidation provides contextual guidance against casual use, but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use direction.

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