Finish Gmail login (after browser approve)

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'Waits if needed; no manual code copy required,' which hints at automatic waiting and code handling. However, it lacks critical details: error conditions, timeouts, what happens if the code is invalid, and the role of the three parameters (code, pendingAlias, chatScope) are not explained. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that define purpose and provide a follow-up sequence. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured by listing parameters or clarifying the waiting behavior, but overall it avoids waste.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what each parameter does, how to handle errors, or what the return value is (if any). The only contextual hint is the follow-up command, but that does not suffice for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. The description does not mention any parameters; it only gives a follow-up command. The three parameters (code, pendingAlias, chatScope) are left completely unexplained, making it impossible for an agent to know what values to provide.

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's purpose: 'Finish Gmail login after browser approval.' It uses a specific verb ('Finish') and resource ('Gmail login'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'connect' (which likely initiates the login) or 'multi_gmail_connect_finish', so it loses one point for lack of 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?

The description provides sequential guidance: 'After success, run `set_signer`, then `fetch`.' This implies a usage order but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'connect'), nor does it mention prerequisites like having initiated the login process first. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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