login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (accessToken and refreshToken), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about authentication failure behavior, token lifetime, rate limiting, or whether tokens are cached/revoked.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return values following. Nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter login with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential pieces: what it does and what it returns, compensating for the absent output schema. Missing only secondary details like token lifetime or prerequisite ordering for dependent tools.

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%: email, senha, and tenantSlug are all documented in the schema, including the IADEV_PROJECT default for tenantSlug. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and scope: authenticate as the project admin, and names the artifacts returned (accessToken, refreshToken). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling get_service_token by concerning admin authentication, but never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to use this over get_service_token, nor of any prerequisite or ordering (e.g., that other tools require the returned token). The usage is only inferable from the tool name 'login'.

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