vk_post_login_02b20554af73

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

The description discloses useful behavioral traits such as returning a JWT token and accepting camelCase/snake_case aliases. However, it contains a critical misstatement: it calls the body field 'optional' while the schema marks it as required. This contradiction misleads agents about a mandatory parameter and undermines trust.

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 reasonably compact and front-loaded with 'Login', but contains redundancy ('Raw Vikunja REST proxy' vs 'Logs a user in') and generic proxy notes ('Path and query parameters are top-level fields') that may not apply. The incorrect 'optional' also detracts from clarity.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must fully explain invocation and expected results. It covers the token and auth requirement, but fails to specify what credentials the body should contain (e.g., username/password) and incorrectly labels body as optional, leaving important gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema already provides a description for body ('The login credentials'), so baseline is 3 given 100% coverage. The description adds 'JSON request payload' and alias handling, but the 'optional body field' claim directly contradicts the schema's required flag, providing misleading guidance rather than meaningful semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Login', 'Logs a user in', and 'Returns a JWT-Token to authenticate further requests'. It also identifies the exact endpoint ('POST /login') and 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy', distinguishing it from registration or other vk_post_* 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 clear context for when to use the tool: to log in and obtain a JWT for subsequent authenticated requests. It also notes that authentication is not required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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