outlook_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the window is visible, requires Edge/Chromium via WSLg/Desktop, and the login is one-time. It omits what happens after authentication (session persistence, whether it blocks, what it returns), which matters for an interactive auth tool.

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, efficiently worded sentence with the key behavioral detail (visible browser window) front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably slightly terse given the tool's interactive nature.

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 one-parameter auth tool with no output schema and no annotations, the essential trigger is conveyed. However, the post-login behavior and how it relates to the broader outlook_* session workflow are left unstated.

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% and the single realm parameter is already documented with its default and examples in the schema. The description adds nothing about realm, so the baseline of 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 concrete verb and resource: opens a visible browser window for a one-time Microsoft 365/OWA sign-in. An agent can tell this is the interactive-authentication tool distinct from read/search siblings like outlook_list_recent, though it never explicitly names how it relates to them.

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 phrase 'damit du dich einmalig ... anmelden kannst' implies this is the setup step to run before authenticated operations, but there is no explicit statement of when to invoke it versus outlook_status (e.g. to check whether a session already exists) or any preconditions/exclusions.

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