i_login_with_sms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key side effect – cookies are captured automatically on successful login – which is the most important thing an agent needs to know about session state. It says nothing about what happens on an invalid or expired code, whether retries consume the pending code, or any rate limiting.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the step position and immediately followed by the prerequisite sibling and the success side effect. No wasted wording.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essential pieces: prerequisite, input source, and post-login session behavior. Only failure-mode guidance is missing, which is a modest gap rather than a blocker.

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 the single parameter is already documented as the SMS verification code received on the phone. The description adds no format, length, or freshness detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action (submit the SMS verification code) and positions itself as step 2 of the SMS login flow. The prerequisite sibling login_send_sms is named, which distinguishes it from i_login_with_password and i_login_with_cookie. It stops short of explicitly ruling out i_login_wait or i_login, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use condition is explicit: call this after login_send_sms with the code received on the phone. No exclusion is stated for the password or cookie login siblings, but the sequence requirement effectively routes the agent to the correct flow.

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