Sign in or sign up for Crave Up

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent behavior and a non-read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a URL, the agent must open it for the user, and the user can authenticate without leaving the flow. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It leads with the core purpose, then immediately gives the actionable next step for the agent, making the most important information easy to scan.

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 start-flow tool, the description covers what the agent needs to do: invoke it, take the returned URL, and open it for the user. A small gap is that it does not explicitly mention the continuation step (complete_crave_auth), but the flow context and sibling naming make this reasonably inferable.

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 there is no parameter detail for the description to provide. The baseline for parameter-free tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the action and returned URL rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 states a clear verb ('Start secure browser authentication') and an explicit resource ('for CLI and MCP access'), plus what the user will do (sign in or create an account). It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools complete_crave_auth and cancel_crave_auth by the 'start' framing.

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 clearly positions this as the initial step in a browser-based auth flow and explains that the agent should open the returned URL. It does not explicitly name complete_crave_auth or cancel_crave_auth as follow-up/alternative tools, but the start-versus-complete/cancel distinction is strongly implied.

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