plu_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Login' without disclosing what happens after (e.g., session creation, token return, side effects). The behavior is vague and lacks detail about the outcome or required permissions.

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 extremely concise with one sentence and an important note. It is front-loaded and to the point, but could be considered too brief for a login tool that might need more context.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or sets (e.g., session cookies). It only says 'login', leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome. This is insufficient for a login tool that likely has side effects.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with basic descriptions. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 tool logs in with email and password, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like plu_get_auth_user and plu_auth_status which deal with authentication state or user info, not login.

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 instructs to ask user confirmation before sending credentials, providing a clear usage guideline. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives like plu_auth_status for checking login state.

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