auth_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a key side effect: the received token is saved locally to ~/.globus-mcp/state.json. It does not mention overwrite behavior, failure handling, or session validity, but the file-path disclosure is concrete and valuable beyond the schema.

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 two tight clauses with no filler: it states the action and the local persistence effect. Both sentences earn their place, and the action is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter login tool with no annotations, the description covers the main action and side effect, and an output schema exists so return values are not a gap. It is still incomplete because it does not explicate the optional phone parameter or the dependency on a preceding auth_send_code step, leaving an agent to infer part of 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'code' is the SMS confirmation code, but it says nothing about the optional 'phone' parameter or why/when it should be provided. Only half of the parameter space is addressed.

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 action and resource: 'Подтвердить вход кодом из SMS' (confirm login with an SMS code), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like auth_send_code that issue the code and auth_set_token that sets a token manually. The core purpose is immediately understandable.

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 'кодом из SMS' and the presence of sibling auth_send_code establish the intended sequence: use this after a code has been sent. However, there is no explicit 'use this after auth_send_code' or 'not when token already exists' guidance or exclusions, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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