mah_verify_code

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

Annotations only carry a generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true); the description adds genuinely useful behavior by explaining that the session is persisted so restarts resume without re-signing, and that it ends when the session lapses. This is real context beyond the structured fields. It does not explain failure modes, but the persistence semantics are the key behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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 compact sentences: the action first, then the consequence on success. No filler, no repetition of the field names, and the most important effect (persistent session) is front-loaded.

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 auth-completion tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the essential post-success behavior. It leaves out failure/expiry handling and the explicit send-then-verify sequencing, which keeps it short of 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%, and the schema itself is unusually rich, documenting 'code' as the one the USER received and explaining the device-trust token nuance for 'rememberDevice'. The description adds no parameter 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 and resource: submitting the verification code the user received. This clearly positions it as the receive-and-verify step, distinguishing it in spirit from mah_send_verification_code, though it never names that sibling explicitly. An agent can infer the resource but must still reason about the ordering of the two code-related tools.

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 phrase 'the code the user received' implies this runs after a code has been sent, but the description never states the prerequisite (call send first) or what to do on failure or expiry. Usage is implied rather than directed, and no alternatives are mentioned despite two sibling auth tools.

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