identity_post_login

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about deprecation and anonymous access, but does not explain token issuance, refresh-token behavior, or response semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded and the description is short. There is some redundancy between 'Login' and 'Performs login', and the access-policy table is awkwardly formatted, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 description covers deprecation, access policy, and the endpoint, and the input schema is fully described. However, for a login operation with no output schema, it does not explain the returned token or refresh-token behavior, leaving a meaningful gap even though the tool is deprecated.

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 input schema already documents the nested body fields and the access_token parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is baseline behavior when the schema is fully covered.

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 operation (login), marks it deprecated, and gives the HTTP endpoint. It is clearly a login tool, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tool that should be used instead, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly says the tool is deprecated and points to an alternative API path, which is strong when-not guidance. However, the alternative is given as a raw endpoint rather than a sibling tool name such as identity_login_oauth, leaving some inference for tool selection.

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