login_platform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the flow is 'interactive' and that it may delegate to external CLIs (e.g., sau for Douyin), but it does not mention side effects like storing credentials, whether it blocks, or what happens on success/failure. This is moderate disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence provides a specific, useful implementation detail. No wasted words or repetition.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain the flow's expected outcomes, prerequisites, or how it fits into a broader workflow (e.g., after login, one might verify with check_platform_auth). The description is too sparse for a tool with an interactive procedure.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'account' parameter at all and only hints that 'platform' selects among supported adapters (via the 'supported live CLI adapters' phrase and the Douyin example). This falls short of meaningful parameter guidance.

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 states the exact action ('Start an interactive login flow') and clearly defines the scope ('for supported live CLI adapters'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like check_platform_auth by focusing on initiating login, not checking existing auth. The mention of Douyin's specific CLI adapter adds concrete context.

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 the tool is used when an interactive login is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over check_platform_auth or list_platforms. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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