bale_auth_request_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not describe what happens when called, such as whether an SMS is actually sent, rate limits, code expiration, or behavior if the phone number is already registered.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, the description leaves the sole parameter undocumented and provides no behavioral context despite missing annotations, making it minimally adequate for a simple auth-initiation tool.

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%, and the single parameter 'phone_number' has no description in the schema. The description only implies it via 'phone login' and does not specify format, country code, or other details needed to invoke correctly.

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 states a specific verb (requesting) and resource (SMS/Bale verification code) for interactive phone login, and adds the scope 'for a new account' to distinguish it from password-based login. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the action and context are clear.

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 gives clear context: use this to initiate phone login for a new account. It implies this is the first step in the auth flow, though it does not name alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., that bale_auth_verify_code should follow).

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