auth_act

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses DNS re-resolution per call, refusal of unconfirmed origins, password fields, and challenge widgets, and that fill/press require a value. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what the response returns.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded, and the value-requirement clause placed after. 'Re-resolves DNS on every call' is slightly tangential but earns its place as a behavioral hint; otherwise there is little 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?

For a 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavioral constraints and refusals well. It lacks return-value and authentication details, but given the sibling family (auth_login, auth_status, auth_read) the missing pieces are modest.

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 already documents all four parameters, including 'value' required for fill/press and selector details. The description only echoes the 'fill and press require value' constraint, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb set (click, fill, press) acting on a specific resource (this site's current page), which is concrete. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like auth_login, auth_open, or auth_read, but the single-action framing is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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 some negative guidance (does not solve CAPTCHA or 2FA, refuses unconfirmed origins/password fields/challenge widgets), which implies when-not. However it never names when to prefer a sibling (e.g., auth_login for authenticating, auth_read for reading) or states prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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