configure_form_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Configure' without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, validation behavior, or what happens to existing settings. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is zero wasted wording, making it highly concise. It does not repeat schema information.

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 tool has 8 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to explain the configuration process, expected effects, prerequisites, or any behavioral caveats. The schema covers parameters but not the operational context.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond labeling the auth type as 'form-based', which the schema's username/password fields already imply. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool configures form-based authentication (username/password login) for a scan configuration. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_oauth and configure_macro_auth by naming the specific authentication type.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as configure_oauth or configure_token_replacement. The context of 'form-based authentication' implies usage but does not provide exclusions or decision criteria, especially given the many sibling authentication tools.

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