mah_send_verification_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful clarification that the code is delivered out-of-band and is not returned to this server, but says nothing about rate limits, whether prior codes are invalidated, or retry semantics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending on the single most important behavioral caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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, no-output tool whose schema and annotations already carry the parameter and safety detail, the description covers what the agent cannot infer: that delivery is out-of-band. The one real gap is that the surrounding flow (send, then mah_verify_code) is never described.

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 both parameters documented including the totp edge case ('nothing is sent; read the code from the app'). The description only echoes 'the channel they chose', adding no format or value guidance 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?

The description states a specific verb ('send a verification code') and resource, and pins the recipient ('to the account holder'), which distinguishes it from mah_verify_code, which consumes rather than emits a code. It stops short of naming the sibling or the sign-in flow it belongs to, so the separation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied through 'the channel they chose' (i.e., the value from mah_sign_in), but the description never states when to call this versus mah_verify_code, nor when not to call it. The re-send condition only appears in the schema, not the description.

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