mfa_generate_sms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Generate SMS-based verification flow'. It does not disclose whether this sends an actual SMS, modifies the project directory, requires external services, or what the generated output looks like.

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 or irrelevant detail. It is concise and easy to parse, though this brevity comes at the cost of contextual richness.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description is the only source of context. It fails to explain what an 'SMS-based verification flow' entails, how the API key is used, what side effects occur in the directory, or what the tool returns. This is incomplete for an agent that needs to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'api_key' parameter at all. The schema documents 'directory' as 'Project directory', but the description provides no additional meaning for either parameter or their roles in the SMS flow.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('SMS-based verification flow'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mfa_generate_totp and mfa_generate_recovery by specifying the SMS channel. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's primary function, though 'flow' remains somewhat generic.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mfa_generate_totp or mfa_generate_recovery. There is only an implied use case from the name and description, with no conditions, exclusions, or 'use when' instructions.

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