Start Thndr login

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, indicating an external, non-repeatable side effect. The description adds that a code is sent to the user's email, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention rate limits or code expiration, but given annotation coverage, this is solid.

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, front-loaded with the step number and primary action. Every sentence adds value: the action, the prerequisite, and the next step.

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 the single-parameter schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, prerequisite, and next step, but omits any note on code expiry or error handling, which would be helpful for a multi-step authentication flow.

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?

Only one parameter (email) with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 action (sends a 6-digit verification code) to a specific resource (the Thndr account email), and explicitly positions itself as 'Step 1 of 3' in the login sequence. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling login tools like login_verify_code and login_request_approval.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to ask the user for their email if unknown, and names the next step ('Next: login_verify_code'), providing both prerequisite context and workflow routing.

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