create_identity_challenge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is an asynchronous cross-channel approval flow, mentions terminal states (confirmed, denied, expired), and warns that a Proof account and PROOF_API_KEY are required. It does not cover all conceivable side effects, but it gives materially useful behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds agent-relevant polling behavior, and the third adds essential access context. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with only three parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is notably complete. It explains the challenge flow, how to consume the result (poll with returned ID), what terminal states to expect, and what setup is required before calling. Nothing critical appears missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 hitl_id, challenger_id, and suspicious_channel. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not exceptional. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 states a specific action (create), a specific resource (Proof-Me cross-channel identity challenge), a clear type (CONFIRM), and the intended scenario (account holder approves/denies on a different channel than the suspicious contact used). This clearly distinguishes it from the many verification, HITL, and confirmation tools in the sibling list.

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 gives explicit post-call guidance: poll get_identity_challenge with the returned ID until terminal state. It also provides a clear access prerequisite and an explicit exclusion: start_login does NOT open this tool. It does not explicitly compare against alternative creation tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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