login_with_token

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose important behaviors such as whether it replaces an existing session, validates the token, or any side effects. The return value is also not mentioned despite an existing output schema.

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 sentences, no extraneous words, and front-loads the action in the first sentence. Every part is useful.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no nested objects. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed. However, the description lacks prerequisites (e.g., token must be valid, from an external OAuth provider) and what happens post-login. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'existing OAuth2 Access Token' without explaining parameter details like format, source, or constraints. It adds minimal value 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 logs in using an existing OAuth2 Access Token, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (no other authentication tools) by specifying a use case for external integrations.

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 advises when to use the tool ('integrations where authentication is handled externally, e.g., ChatGPT'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but siblings do not include other auth tools.

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