discord_open_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the action (open/focus tab), the environment (dedicated Chrome), the purpose (manual sign-in), the persistence side effect (session persists), and a guarded behavior (only navigates when signed-out is confirmed). It does not describe what happens if the tab already exists or what the agent should do on failure, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare operation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The main action and purpose are front-loaded, followed by the important session-persistence and signed-out condition details. Each clause adds necessary information.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool does, why it exists, the dedicated browser context, the one-time nature, session persistence, and the condition under which it navigates. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema documents everything. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it appropriately stays focused on behavior instead. Baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 names a specific verb ('Opens and focuses'), a specific resource ('the Discord tab in the dedicated Chrome'), and a clear purpose (manual sign-in). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like discord_status or discord_read_dm, which involve reading or managing Discord state rather than authentication.

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 clear context for when to use it: when the account owner needs to sign in by hand, one-time, because the session persists. It also states a condition: it only navigates to /login when the signed-out state is confirmed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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