kia_verify_otp

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral side effects: the remember-me token is stored locally and NOT returned, every Kia tool will silently refresh the session thereafter, and MFA is never needed again on this device. This is significant state-changing behavior that directly explains the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the primary purpose, then explains the critical side effects, and finally connects the parameters to their source. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 state-changing authentication step with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the result (session established, token not returned), the side effects (silent refresh, MFA no longer needed), and the required inputs and their source. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand its consequences.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining the origin and relationship of otpKey and xid to kia_start_login and clarifies that otp is the code the user received, which is beyond what the schema states.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'exchange the passcode for a session' and identifies it as 'Step 3 of the Kia MFA bootstrap'. It also distinguishes the tool's role from siblings like kia_start_login and kia_session_status by describing its outcome.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: after kia_start_login, using the otpKey and xid returned by that step, and after the user receives a code. It implies sequencing through 'Step 3' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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