IvedaAI: MultiFactorAuthentication

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

The description discloses the response JSON structure, noting that 'truncated'/'timedOut' flag a cut-off response, which adds value beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention side effects of verification (e.g., whether the OTP is consumed), authentication requirements, or rate limits. With annotations all false, the description partially carries the transparency burden but remains incomplete.

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 highly concise: one line for API context, one for the endpoint, and one for query parameters. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-operation tool, the description covers the endpoint, required query parameters, and response flags, which is fairly complete. However, it lacks details on the exact success/error response body beyond status codes and does not note potential side effects, so it falls short of being fully comprehensive.

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's query object is generic with additionalProperties, so the description is the only source defining access_token and otp_code, their types, and required status (marked with *). This massively compensates for the schema gap and gives the agent essential parameter details.

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 clearly identifies the tool as handling IvedaAI MultiFactorAuthentication operations and explicitly names the POST /api/mfa/email endpoint for verifying MFA. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like ivedaai_authentication and ivedaai_oauth by providing the exact API operation and resource.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists the endpoint and parameters but does not mention any when-to-use scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the use case solely from the phrase 'verify mfa'.

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