passkey_register_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions verification and storage, omitting details like overwrite behavior, failure handling, or required authentication (though access_token is in schema). Minimal transparency.

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 sentence with no fluff, but could usefully include slight contextual detail without significant bloat.

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 tool is part of a WebAuthn flow but the description does not mention the return value (e.g., passkey ID or success), nor does it integrate with sibling tools like passkey_register_options. Given no output schema, this omission leaves the agent with incomplete information.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema parameters, e.g., explaining how 'response' should be structured or the role of 'challenge_id'. Baseline 3 due to high coverage.

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 'verify' and the resource 'WebAuthn registration response', and specifies the outcome 'store the user's passkey'. It distinguishes this tool from related passkey tools like passkey_register_options (which generates options) and passkey_login_verify (login verification).

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 implies it follows passkey_register_options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like passkey_login_verify. No exclusions or contextual guidance is provided.

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