Verify Thndr email code

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description adds context annotations cannot carry: the login request requires out-of-band approval in the mobile app, and the returned message/deep link must be surfaced to the user. It omits failure modes (wrong/expired code, retry limits), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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, zero filler, and the flow position is front-loaded so the agent immediately knows the ordering. Every sentence carries actionable information (what it does, what to show the user, what comes next).

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 multi-step auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: its place in the flow, the side effect it creates, what is returned (message + deep link), how to present it, and the next call. Nothing needed to invoke or route it correctly is missing.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('The 6-digit code from the email'), the schema already carries the full parameter contract. The description's 'emailed code' phrasing adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Verifies the emailed code') plus the side effect it triggers ('creates a login request that the user must approve in the Thndr mobile app'). The 'Step 2 of 3' framing and the named successor distinguish it cleanly from login_start, login_complete, and login_request_approval without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing ('Step 2 of 3', 'Next: login_complete') tells the agent where this sits in the auth flow and which sibling follows. It also instructs what to do with the result ('Show the user the returned message (and deep link)'). It does not state when-not to call it (e.g., expired/invalid code handling or when to restart at login_start), so it stops short of a 5.

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