plainhub_auth

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that the tool is a one-shot bootstrap, that it opens an external GitHub page, that the token is persisted ('it is saved, not shown'), and it recommends a least-privilege fine-grained token with Contents read/write. What it omits is the outcome shape (whether it returns a URL to hand the user, or what happens if already authenticated), which matters for a no-annotation 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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the routing condition, then the security guidance, then the parameter caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the security rationale appears twice ('the token never appears in this chat' and 'tokens pasted into a chat stay in its history'), which is slight redundancy.

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 one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it, including the recommended token scope and the safe handoff path. The gap is the post-call contract: nothing says what the tool returns or how to proceed once the user saves the token.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: it establishes the preferred flow (empty call, user runs 'plainhub auth' in their own terminal) and frames the token parameter as an exception rather than the normal path. The example '{}' clarifies that the parameterless invocation is the expected default.

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?

Names a specific action and resource: 'sign PlainHub in to GitHub: opens the GitHub page that creates a token.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from plainhub_auth_status (which checks state) and from the ledger tools.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger tied to a sibling: 'Use it once when plainhub_auth_status says "Not authenticated"', which implicitly excludes the already-authenticated case. It also states a negative rule for the parameter: 'Pass token only if the user gave it to you on their own' and 'Do not ask for it.'

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