set_initiate_login_uri

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation ('Set') and states the required inputs, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing URI), return values, permissions, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap; the description is not misleading but leaves behavioral details unspecified.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and avoids redundancy. Every clause adds value: it states the action, explains the URI's role, specifies when it's needed, and clarifies the parameters. No filler or repetition.

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 simple setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and parameter meanings. It does not discuss potential side effects or return behavior, but these are minor for a straightforward set operation. Given the lack of annotations, it could be more explicit about overwrite behavior, but the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 add meaning. It clarifies environmentId format as 'env_<number>' (more specific than the schema's pattern '^env_\w+$') and explains uri as 'the full URL of your login initiation endpoint', which adds semantic value beyond the schema's 'format: uri'. It effectively compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Set the initiate login URI') and identifies the resource ('for an environment'). It further explains what the URI is ('endpoint in your app that redirects to Scalekit's /authorize endpoint') and its purpose ('required to handle login scenarios not initiated from your app (IdP-initiated SSO)'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling remove_initiate_login_uri and other URI-related 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?

The description provides a clear use case: 'required to handle login scenarios not initiated from your app (IdP-initiated SSO)'. It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage, but it lacks an explicit exclusion or comparison with sibling tools like remove_initiate_login_uri.

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