set_form_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden but only states it 'configures' login without explaining what that entails (e.g., whether it submits, stores credentials, sets cookies, or has side effects). This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: first defines purpose, second adds usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks context on persistence (e.g., how login is stored), scope (project-wide), prerequisites (project must exist), and comparison with 'interactive_login'. More detail is needed for effective selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond rephrasing the purpose (username/password forms), and does not mention optional selectors. Baseline 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 clearly specifies the verb 'configure' and the resource 'form-based login for a project', and explicitly distinguishes its usage for sites with username/password forms, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'interactive_login' or 'save_login'.

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 clear context for use ('sites with username/password forms') but does not mention when not to use or explicitly compare with alternatives, though the sibling context suggests it is specifically for form-based login.

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