neurover_login

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the agent already knows this is a mutating external call. The description adds that credentials come from the system keychain, which hints at an OS-level prompt, but it never says whether a session token is stored, how long it lasts, or what a failed login looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the action stated before the troubleshooting cue. Nothing is redundant, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and outcome 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?

For an authentication entry point with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the definition omits what matters most: how the account argument selects a credential, what the call returns, and what the caller should do when it fails. The single troubleshooting sentence does not fill those gaps.

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 schema has one parameter, account, with 0% description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not whether it is optional, what value format it takes, or what happens when omitted. With zero structured documentation, the description had to carry this and does not.

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 concrete verb+resource: log into the account using the OS password store. That distinguishes it from neurover_auth_status (status check) and neurover_account_setup, though it never names those siblings or contrasts with neurover_browser_login, which reads similarly.

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?

"First thing to do on an authorization error" gives a real trigger condition, which is better than nothing. But there is no guidance on when NOT to use it, no mention of neurover_browser_login as the alternative path, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether an account must already exist).

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