setup_credentials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that credentials are verified before storage, the keychain service name ('komoot-mcp'), and the failure semantics ('a failed sign-in stores nothing'). It stops short of covering overwrite behavior, keychain access requirements, or security handling of the plaintext password.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the ordering/prerequisite, then the failure guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a credential-setup tool the description covers the prerequisite timing, the alternative configuration path, storage location, and failure behavior - all that an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the two parameters are self-evident (email, password) and the description ties them to the env-var equivalents KOMOOT_EMAIL/KOMOOT_PASSWORD, which clarifies their meaning. It still adds no format, validation, or constraint detail beyond the obvious.

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 (store) and resource (Komoot credentials in the system keychain), with scope ('for future use') that immediately separates it from the tour/highlight/route siblings. An agent can tell this is the one-time auth setup tool without opening the schema.

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 'Call this once before using any other Komoot tools' and names the alternative path (KOMOOT_EMAIL and KOMOOT_PASSWORD environment variables). This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use / alternative structure that removes inference.

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