verify_2fa_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation and prerequisite but does not describe what happens on success or failure, whether the code is single-use or expires, or what side effects completing login has. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and immediately supplies the relevant context about where the code comes from. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, the prerequisite, and where the parameter value comes from. It does not explain failure behavior or edge cases, but an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly with the given context.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does identify 'code' as the 2FA code generated by generate_2fa_code, which is helpful, but it gives no information about expected format, length, or how errors occur. The schema itself only provides the parameter name and type.

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 names the specific operation ('verifying the 2FA code') and the resource ('2FA code'), and ties it to the related generate_2fa_code tool. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_2fa_code because this verifies rather than generates.

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 conveys the intended flow: the code must have been requested via generate_2fa_code, and this call completes login. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisite relationship is clear enough for an agent to sequence calls.

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