yoto_auth_complete

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'finish the login' is consistent with these (a mutating but non-destructive state transition), so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds little beyond annotations — it doesn't disclose what happens to the pending state, whether tokens are persisted, or behavior when no pending login exists. Useful context is minimal.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and includes the triggering condition with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool. It could add a brief usage caveat, but what's there is tight and relevant.

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?

With 0 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the flow. It states the trigger ('after the browser callback arrives') but omits the key precondition that yoto_auth_start must have been invoked to create the pending state, and it doesn't describe the resulting state transition or what indicates success. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the call sequence.

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 tool has 0 parameters (schema coverage vacuously 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description adds conceptual meaning by naming PKCE and the local-pending state, which helps the agent understand the flow even though no arguments are supplied. Some small credit is justified for this framing.

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 verb ('finish') and a specific resource ('pending local PKCE login') plus the trigger condition for when it applies. It clearly distinguishes from siblings: yoto_auth_start begins the flow, yoto_auth_status checks state, yoto_logout ends the session — this one completes it. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without inspecting the schema.

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 phrase 'after the browser callback arrives' gives a timing condition, and the PKCE flow context implies this runs after yoto_auth_start. However, there is no explicit statement of preconditions (e.g., 'only after yoto_auth_start and a successful browser redirect') or exclusions telling the agent when it should use yoto_auth_status instead. The usage is implied but not spelled out.

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