extend_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it operates on pending requests only and requires a Proof account via PROOF_API_KEY or start_login. It stops short of describing the resulting expiration value or whether extension can be repeated.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The ACCESS block is somewhat verbose and slightly repetitive ('then call this tool again'), but it conveys actionable setup information rather than 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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and auth setup adequately. The only real gap is the resulting expiration behavior, which is minor here.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the work.

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 (extend) and resource (the expiration time of a pending verification request), which an agent can clearly distinguish from siblings like cancel_verification_request or get_verification_request. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 'pending' qualifier implies the tool only applies to still-pending requests, giving implicit state guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., when to extend versus cancel or re-create). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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