Log in to ouicu

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

The only annotation is openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses that a browser page is opened when possible, that the call blocks waiting for human approval, and that the credential is persisted where the ouicu CLI keeps it (a side effect extending beyond this server). It does not describe timeout/failure behavior or what happens if the person never approves.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope before the procedural detail, and every sentence carries actionable information. Slightly long, but the branching instructions justify the length rather than padding it.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing the two possible responses (immediate approval vs. a code plus address) and the follow-up action for each. Remaining gaps are error/timeout handling and what the person sees if approval is denied.

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 the single 'wait' parameter is fully documented in the schema (seconds to wait, default 60, max 600). The description mentions waiting but never ties it to the parameter or explains the trade-off of a longer wait, so it adds nothing 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Log in to ouicu') and immediately scopes it ('once per computer, before the other ouicu tools appear'). With no siblings, the scope statement plus the description of both possible outcomes leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: call once per computer and before the other ouicu tools appear. It also explains the conditional branch (browser approval vs. code+address fallback) and explicitly says to call it again to finish in the fallback case. No exclusions or alternatives are named, but none exist given there are no sibling tools.

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