login_with_client_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that this establishes authenticated context for the session and that the client_id persists across subsequent tool calls unless overridden. However, it doesn't mention authentication failure modes, session duration, or whether this creates a new session or reuses existing ones. For an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but leaves important behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly structured and concise. Three sentences cover: 1) core purpose, 2) when to use it, and 3) how it affects subsequent operations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most important information (authentication requirement) comes first.

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 this is an authentication tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which presumably handles return values), the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, when to invoke it, and how it affects other operations. The main gap is lack of information about authentication failure handling or session management details, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While it doesn't explicitly describe the 'client_id' parameter, it provides crucial semantic context: this client_id establishes the authenticated session context that most other tools will use by default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema. With only one parameter, the description effectively explains its role in the broader system.

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: 'Authenticate MCP session to a Signal Found client account.' This specifies the verb ('authenticate') and resource ('MCP session'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'logout_client_context' or 'current_client_context' beyond being an authentication tool.

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 excellent usage guidance: 'Run this at the start of each session before business tools' specifies when to use it, and 'Most tools require authenticated context and will use this session client id unless you pass an explicit `client_id` argument' explains the consequences of using it and how it interacts with other tools. This gives clear context for when and why to invoke this tool.

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