Dashboard authentication

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false tool-wide, but the description adds per-action granularity the annotations cannot: login, login_complete, rotate and reissue store credentials while logout and revoke remove them. That tells an agent which actions are irreversible without inspecting the schema. It does not mention permission requirements or where credentials are persisted, so not a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: sign-in flow first, then sign-out, then project keys, then the persistence rule. The telegraphic style fits an 8-action tool, but "logout signs out" is near-tautological and the persistence sentence repeats the action names already listed, costing a small amount of space.

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 an 8-parameter, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the action set, the login polling workflow, and which actions mutate credentials — enough to call it correctly. Return values are only partially covered (login_init's URL/code is stated, list's output is not), which keeps it short of complete.

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 88%, and the per-parameter notes (graceSeconds "old key lives on", maxWaitSeconds "pending means retry same code", keyId defaults per action) already carry the semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond "poll login_complete", so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas 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 maps the tool's purpose (dashboard auth + project-key management) onto concrete action names: login_init/login_complete for sign-in, logout for sign-out, and rotate/revoke/list/reissue for project keys. It is clearly distinct from every sibling (rbook_project, rbook_session, etc.), which cover unrelated resources. It falls short of 5 because the key actions are listed without stating what rotate vs reissue actually do, leaving a little ambiguity inside the action set.

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?

"show login_init URL/code for browser approval; poll login_complete" conveys the required two-step sequencing, and "logout signs out" gives the context for the sign-out action. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing, but no sibling overlaps this domain, so the omission is minor.

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