resy_login

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description fully discloses critical behavior: the token is stored locally (~/.config/reservations-mcp) and the password is used once and never saved. These security-relevant details go beyond what a schema could provide and are essential for trust.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and result, and every sentence provides value (function, storage, password handling, and an alternative preference). No wasted words.

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 simple login tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: what it does, where the token is stored, and password safety. It does not explicitly state whether the token is returned as a response or how it is used by sibling tools, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'email + password', which maps directly to the two parameters, but it does not provide any additional detail about format, constraints, or usage. This matches the baseline level of just naming the parameters.

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 clearly states the action (Exchange), the resource (Resy email + password), and the outcome (an auth token). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like resy_search or resy_book, which operate on other resources.

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 explicitly advises preferring an alternative (setting RESY_AUTH_TOKEN directly) over using this tool, providing a clear 'when not to use' signal. It does not explicitly state to use it before other Resy tools, but the context and sibling names imply this flow.

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