begin_mail_login

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), the description adds meaningful behavior: it specifies the scopes requested, notes that 'passwords and MFA stay in Microsoft's login window' (indicating an interactive flow), and flags possible consent approval. These details are not covered by the annotations and enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects and user dependence.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences, and is front-loaded with the core action ('Start normal Microsoft sign-in') before providing scopes, caveats, and next-step guidance. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 description provides essential context for using the tool: it instructs the agent to poll get_mail_login_status, explains consent approval, and clarifies that credentials remain in Microsoft's window. While it does not describe the immediate return value, for an initiation tool with zero parameters, the guidance on follow-up actions largely compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The description's focus on the login flow and its outcomes is sufficient given the absence of parameters.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Start normal Microsoft sign-in') with a specific resource scope (mail via Microsoft Graph SDK) and details the exact permissions requested ('profile and Mail.ReadWrite' with 'no Mail.Send'). It is distinguishable from sibling login tools like begin_mytu_login and begin_recording_login, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 description gives a follow-up instruction ('Poll get_mail_login_status') and notes that 'University consent policy may require approval', implying the need for user interaction. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other login methods, nor provide exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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