login_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a visible browser opens, that login is manual/interactive, and that the resulting session/cookies are persisted for later applies. It omits what happens on timeout or failure and whether it blocks until completion, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and the auth methods are front-loaded, followed by the session-capture outcome. Every clause earns its place with 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the interaction model and the side effect (saved session) that an agent needs to sequence later apply_job calls. Missing only edge-case behavior on timeout or failed login.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with enum values and the wait_seconds default. The description corroborates the auth-method context but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (open a visible browser window to log in) plus the downstream effect (session/cookies captured and saved). An agent can distinguish this interactive login tool from siblings like save_session or check_login_status.

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?

Makes clear this is a manual, user-driven login flow rather than an automated one, and names the supported auth paths (OTP, Google sign-in, password). It does not explicitly route against the session siblings (save_session, check_login_status), so it stops short of naming alternatives.

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