sas_viya_sign_in

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

Annotations mark it non-readonly and non-destructive, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses a browser-opening side effect and the two-step code flow, and explicitly states 'Saves no settings' (unlike sas_viya_save), which is exactly the kind of persistence disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the mode-specific detail. Each sentence earns its place by adding either scope or invocation behavior.

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 multi-step auth tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers the core flow adequately but leaves gaps: the 'name' parameter is unexplained, and there is no indication of what a successful or failed sign-in returns or requires of the user.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains 'code' well ('the code SAS Logon shows'), and '(default: the active one)' loosely implies the connection selector, but the 'name' parameter itself is never named or explained, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 specific verb+resource ('Sign in to a saved SAS Viya connection') and separates the call from sas_viya_sign_out by verb. It also spells out the two operating modes, though it does not name the neighboring alternatives (sas_viya_test, sas_viya_state, connection_sso_sign_in) that an agent might confuse it with.

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 gives real conditional guidance for invoking the tool ('Without code... With code...'), which tells the agent how to drive the two-phase flow. However it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like connection_activate, connection_sso_sign_in, or sas_viya_test, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives layer is only implied.

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