write_pairing_code

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

With annotations only flagging destructiveness and openness, the description carries valuable extra detail: the code is single-use, expires in 5 minutes, grants full profile access, and a new code invalidates any unused prior code. These are the exact traits an agent needs before invoking a credential-issuing tool.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then lifetime, scope, and invalidation semantics. No filler and nothing repeated.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, expiry, access scope and invalidation. The only gap is not stating how the generated code is surfaced to the caller, which is minor.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.

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 ('Make a pairing code') plus the intended targets ('another device of this profile: the openGym phone app, or leap on another computer'). No sibling tool covers pairing, and the description makes the scope unmistakable.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (provisioning another device) and even cites the CLI entry point (`leap pair`). It doesn't name an alternative or state an explicit when-not, but no adjacent sibling competes for this job.

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