auth_login

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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: it returns JWT access and refresh tokens, stores them in session config for subsequent requests, and establishes the authentication prerequisite. Since there is no output schema, this return-value context is especially valuable.

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 three focused sentences: purpose first, then return/session behavior, then the precondition. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, the session side effect, and when it must be called. That is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 fully documents both required parameters, including email format and password purpose. The description repeats email/password at a high level but adds no format, validation, or credential requirements beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: authenticate with the Storno.ro API using email and password. It clearly separates this from sibling auth tools by naming the credential type and the initial-token prerequisite, making it distinct from register, refresh, and profile operations.

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?

It explicitly states when this tool is required: before any other tool if STORNO_TOKEN is not set. It does not name alternatives such as auth_refresh for expired tokens, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative routing.

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