apiosk_sign_in

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

The description discloses a meaningful side effect beyond the annotations: it saves the session token locally. This is important behavioral context that neither idempotentHint nor destructiveHint conveys. It also clarifies that it signs into an existing account rather than creating one.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, specifies the target, and explains the purpose of the side effect in one compact statement.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are already covered. The description explains the purpose, side effect, and connection to other tool categories, which is sufficient context for a simple authentication tool. The main gap is parameter-level guidance, but the tool's simplicity reduces the impact.

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 only 33% (save_session is described, but email and password are not). The description does not compensate for the gap: it never explains what save_session controls beyond the general 'save the session token locally' behavior, leaving ambiguity about the false case. Email and password are intuitively obvious, but the description adds no parameter-level detail.

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 a specific action (sign in), the target resource (existing Apiosk dashboard account), and the key side effect (save session token locally). It effectively distinguishes itself from apiosk_create_account by specifying 'existing' account.

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 implies this is a prerequisite step for credits and managed-wallet tools by mentioning the session token is saved 'for' those tools. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when sign-in is needed.

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