pine_send_auth_confirmation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It warns against guessing codes and provides an example for the data parameter, but it does not disclose return values, error handling, side effects, or whether the action is destructive. With 0% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise: a brief main sentence followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the warning is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 covers the main purpose and parameter semantics, and integrates the warning. Given the presence of sibling tools and the existence of an output schema (though not detailed), the description is mostly complete. It could be enhanced by describing the response or error scenarios.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter: session_id ('session requesting authentication'), message_id ('auth request's message_id from pine_get_history'), and data (with an example). Since schema coverage is 0%, this is essential and well-done.

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 'Submit' and the resource 'OTP/verification code' within the context of an '[AUTH NEEDED] event'. It distinguishes from siblings like pine_auth_request_code (which likely requests a code) and pine_auth_verify_code.

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 includes a crucial guideline: 'ALWAYS ask the user for the code first — never guess or hallucinate'. It implicitly sets the context of use after an auth request. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparison with siblings.

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