authenticate_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not discharge it. It says nothing about what authentication produces (token, session, cookie), how failures are surfaced, rate limiting, or whether credentials are cached.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for the amount of content present, though that content is thin.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description should explain what a successful authentication returns and how the agent should use it for subsequent calls. That critical detail is missing for what is a foundational auth tool.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the description only restates 'email e senha' without adding format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (Autentica) and resource (membro) with the credential inputs, so the agent knows it validates a member's identity. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling authorize_entry, which likely has an overlapping authorization role, leaving some ambiguity about which to call.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (authorize_entry, get_member_profile). While 'authenticate' is fairly self-explanatory, the presence of a similarly named sibling makes explicit routing guidance valuable and it is absent.

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