kia_send_otp

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the passcode expires in about two minutes and that expiresAt reports when, and that it lacks a separate confirmation gate. The annotation destructiveHint=true indicates potential side effects, but the description does not contradict this. However, it doesn't elaborate on the destructive nature (e.g., sending SMS may incur costs), so minor gap remains.

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 concise but rich: it conveys the step, dependencies, user interaction, expiration, and reporting in four sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and dependency, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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?

The description covers the key aspects: prerequisites (otpKey, xid), user interaction (ask channel), expiration, and result (expiresAt). With no output schema, it hints at the response containing expiresAt, which is useful. It could mention error handling or what happens if the OTP is not sent, but for a step in a multi-step flow, it's sufficiently complete.

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 100%, with each parameter already described. The tool description reinforces the dependency on otpKey and xid from kia_start_login, adding slightly more context about their source. For notifyType, it reiterates the instruction to ask the user, aligning with the schema. Since the schema is thorough, the added value is modest but not redundant.

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 it is 'Step 2 of the Kia MFA bootstrap (cmm/sendOTP)' and that it delivers a one-time passcode via SMS or email. It distinguishes itself from kia_start_login and kia_verify_otp by explicitly referencing the flow order, making its purpose 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 description explicitly says it 'cannot run without' the otpKey and xid from kia_start_login, making the dependency clear. It also instructs the agent to ask the user which channel to use and not to guess, which is crucial for correct usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but given the MFA bootstrap context, it's evident when to use this tool.

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