extend_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the auth/session requirement and that only pending verification requests are eligible. However, it does not say how much the expiration is extended, whether repeated extensions are allowed, or what happens after the extension, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 first sentence is concise and immediately conveys the tool's purpose. The access note is relevant and earns its place, though the phrasing 'sign in with start_login — a session opens this tool — then call this tool again' is slightly more verbose than necessary.

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 one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the pending-request constraint, and authentication requirements. The main gap is the lack of detail about the extension duration or effects, but the tool is simple enough that this is not critical.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing 'id' as the 'Verification request ID to extend.' The description reinforces the request context but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Extend the expiration time of a pending verification request.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_verification_request, get_verification_request, or wait_for_request by focusing on the extension of expiration rather than creation, retrieval, cancellation, or waiting.

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 clear context: the request must be pending, and the tool extends its expiration time. It also explains the authentication prerequisites for access. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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