qobrix_sign_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the tool's behavior across states: returns a link or native URL elicitation for login/2FA/consent, reports identity when already connected, and is a no-op in Modes A/B. It also reveals the underlying mechanism (per-user encrypted session vault keyed by chat identity headers) and the security constraint about shared threads.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary action, the second covers the two connection states, and the third explains mode behavior and security. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all relevant contexts: mode restrictions, connection states, authentication steps, security warnings, and the identity of the user. An agent can understand exactly when and how to invoke this tool, and what to do with the response.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, but it does add context about the authentication flow and mentions relevant headers (X-Chat-Platform / X-Chat-User-Id) which are not parameters but add useful context beyond 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 tool's function: 'Start interactive Qobrix sign-in (Mode C only).' It specifies the action (start sign-in), the resource (Qobrix), and the scope (Mode C). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like qobrix_sign_out (logout) and qobrix_whoami (identity check) by describing the sign-in flow and identity reporting.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('When not connected') and when it's a no-op ('In Mode A/B this is a no-op'), providing clear guidance on context. It also includes a security guideline: 'Deliver the Sign In link only to that individual — never post it into a shared/group thread.' This is strong usage guidance.

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