yg_auth_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that credentials are used once and not stored, which is helpful, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure.

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, no fluff. First sentence immediately states purpose; second sentence adds a critical behavior note. Each 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?

No output schema and no description of the return format. Given it lists companies, the agent needs to know what fields are returned (e.g., companyId, name). Also lacks error handling for invalid credentials, which is important for a tool accepting sensitive data.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds only generic context ('for a login/password'). It does not individually describe the login and password parameters beyond their role as credentials, providing marginal added value.

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?

Description clearly states it lists companies given login/password to pick a companyId. Verb 'list' and resource 'companies' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools focused on boards, columns, etc.

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like yg_auth_create_key or yg_auth_status. It only implies selection of a companyId but offers no exclusions or context for choosing among authentication tools.

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