Sign in to Clio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the async nature (returns URL before auth completes), the browser-open attempt with a manual fallback, the user-approval step, and that tokens are stored encrypted locally. This is the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs to sequence the flow correctly.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior (returns URL immediately), followed by operating instructions, then verification and usage trigger. No filler sentences; each clause adds operational value.

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 no-parameter-required auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value ('the sign-in URL'), the interaction model, where tokens are stored, and how to confirm success. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 single optional 'force' parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including its cancel-and-restart semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Starts the Clio Manage sign-in (OAuth 2.0)') and immediately clarifies the return behavior ('IMMEDIATELY returns the sign-in URL'). This clearly separates it from clio_auth_status, clio_who_am_i, and clio_logout, which are verification/termination siblings rather than initiation.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('on first run or whenever another tool reports that you are not signed in') and names the follow-up/verification tools (clio_auth_status, clio_who_am_i). Both the trigger condition and the alternative path are stated.

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