Log in with a Promise identity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key side effects: the login replaces any prior identity, clears memberships from a different account, and establishes a long-lived refresh token so Promise is never contacted again. This is meaningful transparency, though it omits error handling or token validation details.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by two brief sentences covering persistence and identity replacement. There is no redundant or tangential information; every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavioral aspects: the token exchange, persistence, and destructive side effects on prior identity. It does not describe the return value or error scenarios, but the main call context is well-addressed. The absence of output schema makes return details less critical.

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%—the id_token parameter already carries a clear description ('A fresh Promise-issued id_token (JWT). Single-use and short-lived — exchange it promptly.'). The tool description adds context about the audience and OIDC, but this is supplemental rather than essential. The parameter semantics are already adequately documented in the schema.

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 action: exchanging a Promise id_token for a persistent Oase identity, with specific details like audience and OIDC. It is unambiguous about the tool's core function, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools promise_login_start and promise_login_finish, which appear to represent an alternative multi-step flow.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling promise_login_start/finish flow. The phrase 'one-time setup' implies a use case, but there is no direct statement of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer that this is for initial or replacement logins.

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