verify_2fa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a rate limit (10 attempts per minute) and authentication requirements. Yet it does not describe what happens after submission (success/failure response, whether the code is consumed, or if the session is invalidated), so behavioral coverage is partial.

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 short and front-loaded: the main action appears first, followed by rate limit and access instructions. The access sentence is somewhat dense with em dashes, but every clause conveys necessary information.

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?

Covers purpose, rate limit, and access prerequisites, but with no output schema, it leaves return values unspecified. It also does not reference the surrounding flow (e.g., obtaining session_id via start_2fa or wait_for_2fa), so an agent gets a functional but incomplete picture.

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 'code' and 'session_id'. The description adds no extra meaning or context about obtaining these values, so it stays at the baseline.

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 clear verb ('Submit') and resource ('verification code' to complete a 2FA challenge). It is unambiguous about the operation, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like submit_verification_code or verify_2fa_magic_link.

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?

Provides practical access context: requires a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, or signing in with start_login to open a session. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving selection among many 2FA/verification siblings to inference.

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