login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that it opens a browser window (a side effect agents should know about) and writes to a config file (~/.config/runapi/config.json), which is genuinely helpful. However, it doesn't mention whether login is idempotent, whether the browser flow is blocking/headless, or any network considerations.

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 sentence conveys the purpose and the side-effect file path efficiently. Zero waste, though it could slightly expand on behavioral implications without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a stateful side-effecting tool (writes config, opens browser) with no annotations and no output schema, which raises the completeness bar. The description covers the mechanism and file destination but omits return value expectations, whether the flow is interactive or automated, and how the agent verifies successful login. For such a consequential action, slightly more detail is warranted.

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% for the single 'force' parameter, which has a clear schema description ('Re-run browser login when the current credential comes from the local config file'). The description's mention of saving to config.json complements the force parameter's meaning but doesn't add much beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb (Authenticate), resource (RunAPI), and mechanism (browser PKCE login flow), and notes it saves the API key to a config file path. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (edit_image, remix_image, etc.) which are all image-related operations, so no confusion about what this tool does.

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 when this is needed (when authentication is required for RunAPI), but doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or alternatives. No mention of whether there's an existing credential or how an agent knows authentication is already complete.

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