chatgpt_login

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real behavioral load: it discloses that the call returns a URL to open and adds a security constraint ('never ask for a password or token in chat'). It stops short of stating whether a login attempt expires, can be repeated, or is superseded by chatgpt_cancel.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its trigger, followed by the return behavior and the credential-safety warning. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by explaining the return value (a URL for the user to open) and the credential-handling constraint. It lacks only lifecycle context — what happens on repeat calls and how it relates to chatgpt_status/chatgpt_cancel.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add on parameter semantics. The schema is empty and fully consistent with a no-argument login trigger.

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 and resource ('Begin ChatGPT browser sign-in') and names the concrete output ('Returns a URL'), which clearly separates it from siblings like chatgpt_status, chatgpt_cancel, and chatgpt_ask. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'when the user asks to connect their account.' However, it names no exclusions or alternatives — for example, it doesn't say to check chatgpt_status first, or that chatgpt_cancel aborts a pending login, leaving some inference to the agent.

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