complete_login

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the token is persisted locally (a side effect on the client), it is bound to the account, and subsequent submissions are owned by that account. It stops short of describing failure modes (invalid/expired code) or whether an existing stored token is overwritten.

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 core action and its local-storage effect come first, the endpoint is parenthetically appended, and the ownership consequence follows. No filler, everything front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and only sparse annotations, the description does cover the essential outcome (a stored account-bound token) and the mechanism (POST endpoint). Minor gaps remain around error handling and token replacement behavior, but nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 67% (code and name are described, email is not), so the schema already does most of the work. The description ties 'email login code' to the email/code inputs but adds no format, constraint, or meaning beyond what the schema states. 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Exchange an email login code for an account API token and store it locally') and pins the concrete endpoint POST /api/agent/token. Combined with the sibling start_login, an agent can immediately see this is the second half of a login flow rather than a standalone operation.

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 implies the flow (an email code must exist, presumably from start_login) but never states when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or failure conditions. Usage is inferable from the name and the phrase 'email login code', but nothing is explicit.

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