auth_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-detection from local browsers and supported browsers, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether existing login state is overwritten), permission requirements, or the behavior of QR code login. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a useful detail about browser support. It has no filler or redundant phrasing, though it is brief to the point of under-specification.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and an output schema, the description gives no information about return values, parameter meanings, or edge cases. It is a high-level one-liner that leaves the agent guessing about how to invoke the tool correctly. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, yet the description explains none of the five parameters (qr, raw, source, browser, qr_timeout). The only faint reference is to supported browsers, which indirectly relates to the 'browser' parameter. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('import') and resource ('login state'), and adds context about default browser auto-detection. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like auth_status or auth_reset_guard, though the name and function are reasonably distinct.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a login/authentication use case but does not state prerequisites, when to choose this over auth_status, or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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