login

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: each call adds/replaces that subdomain's session, env vars are used as fallback, and 2FA returns instructions for follow-up calls. This goes beyond what annotations (none provided) would cover. It doesn't mention side effects like invalidating other sessions, but the add/replace note covers the key stateful behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is stated first, then fallback behavior, then multi-school nuance, then 2FA routing. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 login tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call flow, env var fallback, multi-school behavior, and 2FA follow-up. It doesn't describe the success response format or error cases, but the 2FA routing and session semantics are the critical context an agent needs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that username, password, and subdomain can be omitted and fall back to env vars, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't detail each parameter's format, but the env var fallback and multi-school semantics are the most important context.

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 tool's purpose: logging in to Edupage for a subdomain. It specifies the resource (Edupage subdomain) and the action (log in), and distinguishes it from siblings like login_all and login_auto by explaining the multi-school behavior.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool vs alternatives: it mentions login_all for multiple schools, and two_factor_check_confirmed/two_factor_finish for 2FA flows. It also documents env var fallback behavior, giving clear context for when parameters can be omitted.

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