create_authorization

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: a human-approval gate before confirmations work, plus an account/API-key prerequisite. It does not describe rate limits or the returned artifact, keeping it short of 5.

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 tight paragraphs, purpose front-loaded, with the access prerequisite separated out. Every sentence carries weight; nothing is redundant, though the framing is slightly verbose.

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 9-param, 5-required create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the human-approval workflow, and the account prerequisite. It omits what the creator receives back (e.g., an authorization identifier) and how to proceed afterward, which is the only notable gap.

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 all 9 parameters (including channel/scope enums and the bsuid alternative to phone) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no field-level syntax or format detail, so 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 verb+resource ('Create a new authorization request') and explains the resource's role: granting permission to send confirmations via a channel. This meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like create_confirmation and request_hitl_authorization, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives the ordering constraint (user must approve before confirmations can be sent) and a clear ACCESS prerequisite (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, restart). The exclusion 'start_login does NOT open this tool' usefully prevents a wrong path, but no explicit alternative tool is named for edge cases.

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