auth_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial detail: atomic application, .env non-interference, bcrypt password verification, random opaque tokens, prefix-safe Redis keys, bounded TTL, Redis-derived identity, and logout deletion. It does not fully specify file-level side effects or idempotency, but the critical behavioral traits are well covered.

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 information-dense with no filler and is front-loaded with its purpose and scope. It is somewhat long, but every sentence contributes a meaningful constraint or behavioral detail.

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?

Given the complexity of the operation and the absence of an output schema and annotations, this description is unusually complete: it defines all three endpoint categories required by the schema, states security requirements, and clarifies what the tool will and will not do. Minor gaps such as prerequisites and error/return behavior prevent a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping token_endpoints to issuers, protected_endpoints to validators/me/session, and logout_endpoints to revocation, while also explaining the token storage and TTL semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb ('add'), resource ('Redis session wiring'), and scope ('complete authentication surface'), explicitly naming token issuers, token validators, and logout. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling infrastructure tools like action_add_redis and action_add_secret by focusing on authentication wiring and forbidding JWT/app signing secrets.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies: it wires Redis sessions across login/registration, protected endpoints, and logout, and never touches .env. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state 'use this tool instead of X', so it falls just short of a 5.

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