Start pairing

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, but the description adds genuinely new traits: the URL is single-use, opening it auto-connects the user's Studio tab, and a raw `code`/`port` fallback exists. It stops short of saying whether the session expires or how long the URL remains valid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key return value, with the manual-entry fallback tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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 no output schema present, the description steps up by naming the return fields and their purpose, which is the main thing an agent needs. The only gap is lifecycle detail such as how long the single-use URL stays valid.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden; the description correctly spends its words on return values instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a pairing session') and immediately explains what it produces (a single-use `pairUrl`). No sibling tool in the list does anything similar, so disambiguation is not needed.

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?

Usage is only implied: handing the `pairUrl` to the user so their Studio tab connects. There is no explicit statement of when an agent should call this versus, say, `swebsy_status` or `swebsy_open_site`, nor any preconditions.

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