bale_auth_verify_code

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a session is saved after verification, which is useful, but does not mention error handling, code expiration, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed, but other behavioral traits remain 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the key outcome. 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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a required parameter plus an optional parameter, the description is incomplete. It omits crucial context about the 'transaction_hash' parameter and behavioral details like error conditions, which are necessary for correct invocation.

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 description provides no details about the parameters. The 'code' parameter is somewhat implied, but 'transaction_hash' is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose and usage completely undocumented.

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 (Verify) and resource (authentication code received via SMS/Bale), and clarifies the outcome (complete login and save session). It is distinguishable from siblings like bale_auth_request_code and bale_auth_verify_password, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage after receiving a code, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over bale_auth_verify_password or other alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or explicit comparisons.

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