create_verification_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries a higher burden. It does add useful behavioral context: the tool requires an authenticated Proof account and an environment variable, and it cannot be reached through start_login. Yet it does not disclose side effects, response format, follow-up steps like waiting for the request, or any rate-limit/error behavior, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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: the core purpose appears first, followed by a clearly separated access note. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes the prerequisite stand out without bloating the description.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and many related sibling tools. The description covers access but omits essential operational context such as what the tool returns, how to poll or wait for the created request, and how it relates to request-status tools like get_verification_request or wait_for_request. For a tool of this complexity, the description is under-specified.

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 all parameter meanings and defaults. The description adds only the high-level notion of multi-asset verification and access requirements, not any parameter-specific guidance. This meets the baseline but goes no further.

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 it creates a multi-asset verification request, lists the verifiable asset types, and emphasizes single-flow execution. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_verification or create_multi_channel_verification by highlighting the multi-asset nature and the request-based model.

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 provides concrete access prerequisites: a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY setup, and server restart. It also explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, preventing a common mistaken path. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative request-creation or verification tools or state when to prefer this over them.

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