verify_2fa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: a rate limit of 10 attempts per minute and authentication requirements (Proof account, API key or start_login session). It does not detail success/failure side effects, but the added constraints are substantive.

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 front-loaded with purpose and a key behavioral note (rate limit), followed by a separate ACCESS paragraph. It is efficient with no redundant sentences, though the ACCESS section is slightly verbose for its informational value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2FA verification), the absence of an output schema, and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context: what it does, rate limits, and authentication prerequisites. It lacks detail on what happens after successful verification (e.g., returned tokens or session state), but that may be inferable from the 2FA flow.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('code' and 'session_id'), so the schema already fully documents them. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as format hints or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Submit') and resource ('verification code') and clarifies the goal ('complete a 2FA challenge'). This distinguishes it from siblings like start_2fa (which initiates) or get_2fa_status (which checks status), but it does not explicitly name any alternative tool, leaving that differentiation implicit.

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 phrase 'to complete a 2FA challenge' implies the tool is used after a challenge has been started, and the ACCESS section provides prerequisite context (need a Proof account, sign in with start_login). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like verify_2fa_magic_link or submit_verification_code, nor does it state exclusion conditions.

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