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 well: it discloses that a browser is opened (user interaction), the PKCE flow is used, and an API key is written to a specific file. It does not mention edge cases like headless environments or overwriting behavior, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Authenticate') and efficiently packs the mechanism and side effect without redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and side effects. It does not explain return values, but that is a minor gap given the tool's primary purpose is to modify local configuration. The parameter behavior is fully specified in the schema.

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% since the only parameter 'force' has a full description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Authenticate') with a clear resource ('RunAPI') and mechanism ('browser PKCE login flow'), distinctly separating it from sibling tools that handle image operations or pricing. It also specifies the side effect (saving API key to a config path), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear usage: call when authentication is required, as it is the only auth tool among siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the context makes the intended use obvious. The parameter 'force' in the schema adds usage nuance for re-authentication, though the description itself does not elaborate.

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