verify_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the key side effects: 'logs the session in' and 'saves the token for future sessions.' It does not cover edge cases like code expiry or error behavior, but the main behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then states the side effects. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter login tool, the description is largely complete: it names the input context, the mechanism, and the outcome. It does not specify return values, but no output schema is provided and the side effects may be the primary concern. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance about matching the email to the one used in `login_link`.

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 0%, and the description only partially compensates. It explains that the code is the one emailed by `login_link`, giving context for the `code` parameter, but it does not clarify that `email` must match the address used in `login_link` or describe any format constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Complete') and identifies the exact resource ('passwordless login') and mechanism ('code emailed by login_link'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like `login` or `verify` by referencing the emailed code flow.

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 phrase 'code emailed by login_link' clearly implies the prerequisite step and situates this tool as the follow-up to `login_link`. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the intended usage context is unambiguous enough.

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