generate_2fa_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining the side effect: it sends a 2FA code via SMS or EMAIL. It also explains the account-requirement and the failure-driven use context. It does not mention rate limits, cooldowns, or that the code is delivered out-of-band, but the intended behavior is still clear.

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?

Three short sentences, each essential: the main purpose, the channel values, and the required workflow with the next tool. It is front-loaded with the action and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the triggering condition, the parameter values, and the follow-up step. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It states that channel is 'SMS' or 'EMAIL', which gives the allowed values that the schema omits. It could note the default 'SMS' or explain the meaning of each channel, but the core parameter semantics are provided.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Ask Picnic to send a 2FA code' for accounts that require it. It clearly differentiates from the sibling verify_2fa_code by focusing on sending/generating rather than verifying.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first if any other tool fails with a message about 2FA being required.' It also names the follow-up tool, verify_2fa_code, so the agent knows exactly when and in what sequence to use it.

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