Sign in to your AI accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that a visible browser window is opened on the 'private no-api-media' profile, that credentials are never seen or stored server-side, and that closure is the user's responsibility. It does not say whether sessions persist after the window closes or what happens if it is left open.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the security guarantee — the most trust-critical fact — is front-loaded immediately after the action. Each sentence earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the mechanism, the security posture, and the required user follow-up. It is slightly short on the post-sign-in state (whether logins are stored for later tools to use, or how to confirm success).

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'services' parameter already carries an inline description with allowed values and a default. The description never mentions 'services', so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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?

Concrete verb and resource: opens a normal Chrome window on a named profile so the user can sign in by hand. An agent knows exactly what action occurs. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling accounts_status, which an agent might reasonably confuse for checking login state.

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?

Gives explicit operational instruction: tell the user to sign in, then close the window — so the agent knows the call starts a human-in-the-loop step rather than completing auth itself. It does not mention accounts_status as the way to verify the result afterward, so routing between the two siblings is left to inference.

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