mah_send_verification_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the external side effect is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'The code goes to them, not to this server,' telling the agent the code is not returned here. It stops short of describing failure, expiry, or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded and the clarifying constraint about where the code goes follows immediately.

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 two-parameter tool there is no output schema, so the description carries more of the burden of explaining what comes back. It hints the code is not returned but says nothing about the response shape or what the agent needs in order to proceed to mah_verify_code, leaving a real gap.

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% and the channel enum already documents sms/email/totp, including the note that totp sends nothing. The description only restates 'the channel they chose,' adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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+resource: sending a verification code to the account holder. It is clearly distinct from the sibling mah_verify_code (which validates a code), though it never names that sibling explicitly. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the 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?

The description situates the call in a flow (the channel the user chose, as reported by mah_sign_in) and the schema note covers the resend case. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to mah_verify_code as the follow-up step, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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