configure_macro_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'configure macro-based authentication' without explaining what changes occur (e.g., associating the macro with a scan config), whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. The lack of detail about the configuration process or return behavior is a significant gap 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, concise sentence that starts with the action verb 'Configure' and introduces the key concept. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured, though it could include a bit more contextual detail without becoming overly verbose.

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 tool (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain what macro-based authentication entails, how it integrates with scan configurations, or when it should be used. The sibling tools highlight the need for differentiation and contextual guidance, which is entirely absent.

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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaningful information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't mention replay_speed or extra_delay_ms). This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specifies the verb 'configure' and the resource 'macro-based authentication', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling auth tools like configure_form_auth and configure_oauth. The phrase 'using a previously uploaded macro file' adds key context about the prerequisite, making the purpose clear and specific, though it doesn't explicitly mention that it applies to a scan configuration.

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 implies a prerequisite (previously uploaded macro file) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as configure_form_auth or configure_oauth. It does not mention trade-offs, exclusions, or scenarios where macro-based auth is preferred, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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