authenticate_coros_mobile

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive action. The description adds context beyond annotations: it stores a mobile token and scopes authentication to the mobile API. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it does not detail token expiration, refresh behavior, or repeated-call semantics.

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 just two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence provides valuable context (sleep data) without any filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is an authentication step, and the description explains what it does, why it is needed (sleep data), and its scoping to the mobile API. With an output schema present and annotations already covering mutation/destructiveness, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents email, password, and region. The description does not add extra parameter context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 begins with a specific verb and object: 'Authenticate with the Coros mobile API only and store the mobile token.' It clearly identifies the resource (mobile API) and the action (authenticate/store token), and distinguishes itself from sibling authenticate_coros by emphasizing 'mobile API only.'

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 explicitly states when this tool is needed: for sleep data (deep/light/REM/awake phases) that is only available via the mobile API. It also clarifies that the Training Hub web API does not provide this data, implying the alternative. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool authenticate_coros as the alternative for non-sleep data, so it stops short of a full 5.

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