Setup Credentials

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses key behaviors: a local-only loopback server on a random port, a one-time token, that secrets never reach the agent, and that the call returns immediately rather than blocking on user input. This is exactly the non-obvious operational context an agent needs.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger, then the post-call instructions. No filler.

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-parameter, output-schema-backed tool, the description covers what the tool does, when to invoke it, the interaction loop, and the safety property. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 parameter's description ('Service ids to collect credentials for; omit for every enabled service') already carries the semantics. The description's phrase 'for the given services' adds little beyond the schema, so 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 states a concrete action (open a local browser page at 127.0.0.1 with a one-time token) where the user manually enters credentials. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like setup_status (which only reports state) and setup_set/config_set (which programmatically set values).

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use when: setup_status shows missing keys') and prescribes the follow-up sequence (return, tell user to fill form and Save, then call setup_status). However, it does not contrast with other credential-adjacent siblings in this large tool set (setup_set, config_set, setup_services), leaving some routing ambiguity.

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