simplepractice_request_sign_in_link

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

Discloses rich behavioral details beyond the annotations: it sends a real email, is rate-limited per email and IP, requires confirmation, and hides account existence (success does not prove the address has an account). These are not present in the schema or annotations and significantly aid the agent in setting expectations and avoiding misuse.

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?

Three sentences, all substantive. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical behavioral caveats. No filler or repeated information. Every sentence contributes to correct usage.

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 side-effect-free-looking but actually side-effect-heavy tool (sends email), the description covers the key operational facts: real email, rate limits, confirmation requirement, and the ambiguity of success. It does not describe the response format or what a preview contains, but given there is no output schema, some gap remains. Overall, sufficient for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters already have descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining why confirm is required (rate limiting) and by directly stating the requirement. This goes slightly beyond the schema's description, which only says it returns a preview without confirmation, to explain the underlying rationale.

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 begins with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Ask SimplePractice to email a sign-in link to a Client Portal address.' It states the purpose precisely and distinguishes it from siblings (verify token/pin) by explaining this is the only way to sign in since the portal has no password.

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 implies when to use this tool (to initiate sign-in) and provides important prerequisites: confirm:true is required because it sends a real, rate-limited email. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context of 'how you sign in' makes the use case clear. Slightly lacking explicit exclusions, but adequate.

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