login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden and does well: it discloses browser opening, automatic session saving, repeat safety, and that calling again does not restart the flow or invalidate the open link. It does not mention failure behavior or output, but the key side effects are covered.

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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by repeated-use behavior, then the optional parameter. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the flow, repeat safety, and the parameter meaning. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns, but the 'call again anytime to confirm' hint provides enough practical context for an agent.

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 the schema fully documents switch_account. The description adds 'sign in as a different user', which slightly clarifies intent, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's 'Force a fresh sign-in screen even if a session exists.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Sign in with your IMG.LY account') and distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it opens the system browser. It clearly identifies the resource and the auth flow.

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?

It gives clear context for when to call: anytime to confirm a session, and with switch_account=true to sign in as a different user. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like logout or when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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