Start Yolfi Agent Setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added detail — that it returns a login URL and persists only a short-lived token in the protected local config — genuinely extends the safety picture by naming the one thing that gets written. It stops short of saying what repeated invocations do (new token each time) or how long the token lives, which would complete the non-idempotent contract.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the side effect front-loaded. Nothing repeats the tool name or the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value (login URL) and the persisted state (short-lived check-in token), and the annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent has what it needs to call it. The remaining gap is workflow context — what to do with the returned token and which sibling completes the flow.

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 coverage is 100% and both properties already carry descriptions, including the note that agentId is a compatibility alias for agent. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema is doing the work.

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 a specific verb and resource — it starts a browser-based authorization flow and returns a login URL. It is clear what the tool does on its own, but it never distinguishes this entry point from siblings like yolfi_agent_register or yolfi_agent_checkin, so an agent cannot fully route between the setup tools from the description alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'authorization flow' and by the mention of a check-in token, which hints that yolfi_agent_checkin follows, but the sequence is not stated and no alternative or exclusion is named. An agent must infer from sibling names that this is step one of a multi-step setup.

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