appflowy_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool logs in and returns tokens, implying an authentication side effect. However, it does not disclose whether previous tokens are invalidated, error behavior, or security considerations like credential handling.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main action and then specifies return values.

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 explains the return values, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, parameter details are missing. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is adequate but has a clear gap in parameter semantics.

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 0%. The description does not explain the nested 'request' object or its sub-parameters (email, password). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 verb 'Login' and the resource 'AppFlowy Cloud', and explicitly mentions the return values (access token and refresh token). No sibling tool has overlapping functionality, so differentiation is not needed.

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 usage for authentication but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is a sibling tool 'appflowy_refresh_token' that could be an alternative for token renewal, but no comparison is made. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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