Signup: send verification code

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the side-effect profile is covered without the description. The description adds useful context that this is a UI-driven step-one trigger, but says nothing about email delivery, code expiry, rate limits, or whether prior codes are invalidated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the flow position and followed by the caller restriction. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 3-required-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers placement in the flow and the intended caller, which is the core need. It omits follow-on behavior (that air_signup_verify_code is step two), failure modes, and any return expectations, leaving a gap for an agent that ends up involved in signup.

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 0%, so all three parameters (name, email, orgName) rely on their names alone, and the description contributes nothing about them. The names are largely self-explanatory for a signup form, which prevents a 1, but the description does no work to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('send the verification code') and situates it as 'Signup form step one', which implicitly separates it from the sibling air_signup_verify_code. It stops short of naming that sibling outright, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Submitted by the form itself, not by the assistant' is an explicit when-not-to-use instruction, which is unusually strong guidance. It does not, however, tell the agent what to use instead or what to do if it needs to drive signup programmatically.

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