setup_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the local host/port, the one-time token, the security model ('Secrets never reach you'), and the async return behavior ('Returns at once with the url'). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, parentheticals carry mechanism details without bloat, and the final sentence gives the next step. Dense but every clause 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still notes it returns the URL. For a security-sensitive, multi-step setup flow it covers the model and the handoff to setup_status; only the services-parameter detail is thin.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the sole parameter's default semantics ('default: all enabled'), which is the key behavior, but adds no format details for the services list itself. Baseline 3 given the single param and partial compensation.

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?

States a specific action and mechanism: opens a local browser page for the USER to type service credentials. The purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like setup_services or setup_set, but the credential-entry framing is distinctive enough.

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?

Clear context for use and an explicit follow-up ('tell the user to fill the form and Save, then call setup_status()'). It names the next step in the workflow but does not say when this tool is the wrong choice relative to setup_services/setup_set.

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