Auth Login

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

Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds important behavioral details: it automatically handles MFA when MONARCH_TOTP_SECRET is configured, saves the resulting session, and uses either configured or explicit credentials. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact sentences deliver the core purpose, credential mechanism, MFA behavior, and side-effect of saving the session. Every clause adds necessary information and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 description covers authentication flow and session persistence adequately for a first call, but with no output schema and sparse annotations, it omits important context such as failure modes, output shape expectations, and how session persistence interacts with sibling session tools. It is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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 low (33%), so the description carries extra responsibility. It does clarify the roles of email/password as 'explicit overrides' and relates mfa_code/totp_secret to automatic MFA handling. However, it does not explain fields or output_mode, which remain defined only in the schema.

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: 'Log in to Monarch' using configured credentials or overrides. It also distinguishes itself from sibling auth tools by noting it saves the session for the deployment's single Monarch account, making it unambiguous which tool to use for logging in.

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 this is the tool to use for authenticating a session and saving it, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like auth_create_session, auth_save_session, auth_load_session, or auth_status. The when-to-use context is present implicitly, but exclusion guidance is missing.

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