Complete Crave Up authentication

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the shared CLI/MCP session is saved securely and that this step completes an existing browser login. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or readOnlyHint 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?

A single, compact sentence conveys the action, prerequisite, and outcome with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding when and why to call the tool.

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 zero-parameter, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the prerequisite start_crave_auth step, the action of completing login, and the result of saving the session. No additional invocation-relevant details are missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema fully describes the parameter surface. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details, and a no-parameter tool warrants the baseline score of 4.

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 specific action: completing a browser login initiated by start_crave_auth and saving the shared session. It differentiates itself from the sibling start_crave_auth and cancel_crave_auth by describing the completion step of the auth flow.

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 establishes the correct context by referencing a login 'started by start_crave_auth', making it clear this tool is the follow-up step. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with cancel_crave_auth, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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