mah_verify_code

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

With annotations already covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description adds real behavioral value: the persisted session survives restarts and lapses over time. It does not explain what happens on an invalid/expired code or why the operation is flagged destructive, leaving a gap.

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 no filler, front-loading the action and then the success-side effect. Every clause earns its place.

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 write/auth tool with destructive and openWorld annotations and no output schema, the description covers the success outcome but omits failure behavior (invalid code, expiry handling) and why it is marked destructive. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so both parameters (code, rememberDevice) are already documented in the schema, including the important note that the device-trust token is not redeemed. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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+resource (submit the verification code) and clearly contrasts with the sibling mah_send_verification_code and mah_sign_in by describing the terminal step of the flow. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Submit the verification code the user received' implies the usage context (after a code has been sent), but the description never names the prerequisite step or any alternative sign-in path. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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