verify_login_otp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'complete login' but does not specify side effects (e.g., session creation), error conditions, or security implications. This is insufficient for a login action.

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 of 8 words, front-loaded with the key action. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or extraneous content.

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 simple nature (2 required params, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks crucial details about return values, error handling, and post-login state. It covers the basic purpose but not enough for a secure authentication step.

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 adds no details about the parameters beyond their names. While 'email' and 'code' are intuitive, the description should elaborate on format, length, or constraints to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verify an OTP and complete login. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_login_otp (which sends the code) and login (which may use password), making the specific action unambiguous.

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 context is clear: this tool should be used after receiving an OTP, likely from send_login_otp. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the flow is implied by sibling tool names.

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