Sign in to put.io

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is an async browser-based flow, needs user interaction, and requires a follow-up status check. This complements readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. It does not mention token overwriting, but that is a minor omission.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the primary function, the second provides follow-up and prerequisite guidance. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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 login tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description is fully complete: it covers purpose, the interactive browser nature, the follow-up status check, and the dependency on this tool for other actions. The agent has all necessary context.

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 100% for the single 'force' parameter, so the schema already provides clear meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, matching the baseline for fully self-documenting 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 'Starts the put.io sign-in flow' and that it returns browser instructions for the user. This specific verb+resource phrasing, combined with the mention of a follow-up status check, distinguishes it from sibling tools like putio_auth_status and putio_logout.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'Required before searching torrents or creating transfers' and 'Call putio_auth_status afterwards to confirm completion.' This gives clear when-to-use instructions and defines the expected workflow relative to sibling tools.

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