passkey_passkey_registration_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP verb and path. It does not state that this completes a registration ceremony, requires a prior options call, or what authorization is needed. The confirm-parameter behavior lives only in the schema, not the description.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but includes boilerplate noise such as the raw path and 'Tags: Passkeys Controller' that carry little value for an agent. Every sentence does not earn its place.

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?

For a security-sensitive mutation with a nested required body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the context to call it correctly as part of a passkey registration 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 description coverage is 50%: only the 'confirm' flag is documented, while the required nested 'body.response' object is left completely undocumented. The description adds no meaning about what the response payload must contain (e.g. WebAuthn attestation data), so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 with 'Verify registration for passkey', which is understandable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the endpoint summary and gives no differentiation from siblings like passkey_passkey_registration_options or auth_passkey_authentication_verify. It is adequate but generic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to the registration options and authentication verify siblings. The agent must infer the flow entirely.

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