test_verify

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

Annotations establish that this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: it requires a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, the server must be restarted, and start_login does not expose this tool. It still does not describe the exact mutation result or side effects beyond auto-completion.

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 and test-mode constraint are front-loaded, followed by a short access/setup note. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 test-only mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: test-key requirement, account setup, and the fact that start_login does not open this tool. It could additionally mention what the tool returns after auto-completion, but the practical invocation guidance is strong.

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%, and the single parameter 'id' is already documented in the schema as 'Verification ID.' The description does not add any further syntax, format, or source-of-id detail, so the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Auto-complete a verification in test mode.' It also names the key constraint (pk_test_* API keys only) and the testing use case, which distinguishes it from real verification tools such as submit_verification_code or trigger_verification.

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?

Clearly says when to use it: test mode only, with pk_test_* keys, for testing without real OTP delivery. It also gives the auth setup prerequisite. It does not explicitly name the production alternative, but the test-mode context is clear.

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