code-fundi-auth-verify

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

The description discloses side effects beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: 'On success, activates the API key and configures it in-memory for all subsequent tools in this MCP session.' It also advises on persistence for restarts, adding meaningful behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, prerequisite, human involvement, success behavior, and persistence advice. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool's role in an auth flow, the description covers prerequisites, the human-in-the-loop requirement, success effects, and optional persistence. Without an output schema, it sufficiently addresses what the agent needs to know to execute and handle the outcome.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the token to the email verification step and emphasizing that the human user must supply it, which helps the agent understand where the values come from and how to obtain them.

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 tool's purpose: 'Complete OTP sign-in (POST /v2/auth/verify)'. It specifies the exact action and endpoint, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by referencing the preceding authenticate step and the follow-up activation of API keys.

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?

Provides explicit usage sequencing: 'Requires the 6-digit code from the user's email after code-fundi-auth-authenticate.' It also instructs the agent to ask the human user for the token and explains the effect of success (activates the API key for the session), giving clear when-to-use context.

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