authenticate_broker

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'session-isolated', which hints at isolation but doesn't explain what happens to existing credentials, whether tokens are persisted or overwritten, or what success/failure looks like. For an authentication tool handling sensitive data, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and wastes no words. However, given the tool's complexity (12 parameters), it may be too terse, but as a concise statement of purpose it is well-structured.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is just one sentence. It fails to explain the authentication flow, which credentials are needed per broker, the full implication of 'session-isolated', or how it relates to siblings like get_broker_login_instructions. This is incomplete for such a complex tool.

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 100%, with each parameter having broker-specific notes (e.g., 'required for Kite', 'for AngelOne'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the generic 'using credentials', so baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Authenticate' and resource 'broker', making the core action clear. It adds 'using credentials' and 'session-isolated', but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like set_active_broker or get_broker_login_instructions, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_active_broker or get_broker_login_instructions. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues for choosing authentication versus other broker-related operations. The agent is left without direction.

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