zmp_wait_for_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the call blocks and polls, and it has a mutation side effect (writing ZMP_TOKEN into .env). What it omits is failure behavior — whether it errors or returns a status when timeoutSec elapses, and whether the token write is idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the awaited user gesture, and the resulting side effect with no redundant or filler content.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, yet the description adequately conveys what the tool does and its persistence side effect for a simple 3-parameter tool. It is only slightly incomplete in not describing timeout/error outcomes or how the completion is surfaced to the caller.

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%, so all three parameters (zmpsk, projectDir, timeoutSec) are already documented in the schema, including the default of 60 seconds. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 — poll/wait for the user's QR scan authorization — and adds the side effect of persisting ZMP_TOKEN to .env. It is clear on its own, but it never differentiates itself from the neighboring zmp_get_login_status or zmp_request_login_qr tools, so the agent must infer the ordering.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description mentions the QR authorization flow and the zmpsk parameter ties it to zmp_request_login_qr, so an agent can guess it runs after requesting a QR. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer zmp_get_login_status (non-blocking poll) instead, and no note on prerequisites such as having an open QR session.

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