airstrings_login

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the full two-step protocol: first call returns status 'pending' with verification_uri_complete, an org owner approves in-browser, the agent must call login again, and denial/expiry means restarting. That async approval and retry behavior is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the exact call sequence and then the usage rule, with no filler. The length is justified by a genuinely multi-step, stateful flow that would be unusable if abbreviated.

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 stateful auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the return states (pending, verification_uri_complete, organization once stored), the failure/retry path, and the persistence side effect. An agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the org parameter's constraint ('approval rejected for any other org') is already documented in the schema. The description adds persistence context ('store an org key on this machine') but no new meaning about org or base_url beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Log in to an AirStrings organization and store an org key on this machine') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by adding 'without binding a directory'. An agent can separate it from airstrings_init without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use it before airstrings_init when several directories will share one login; to set up a single repo, call airstrings_init directly (it logs in when needed).' This is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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