simplepractice_verify_sign_in_pin

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

Annotations only indicate mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it is a single-use exchange that creates a session. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the one-time nature and the session outcome, which is valuable for an agent calling this tool.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Exchange a 6-digit Client Portal sign-in PIN for a session') and appends the usage context and single-use caveat. There is no fluff or redundant wording.

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 simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys what it does, when to use it, and key behavioral constraints. It does not specify error handling or the exact session object returned, but given the simplicity and annotations, these are minor omissions.

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 50%: only email has a schema description ('The address the PIN was sent to.'). The pin parameter only has a pattern, but the tool description clarifies pin as a '6-digit Client Portal sign-in PIN', adding meaning beyond the schema. Thus both parameters are effectively covered via schema and description, exceeding the baseline.

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 ('Exchange'), resource ('6-digit Client Portal sign-in PIN'), and outcome ('for a session'), and distinguishes itself by noting 'for practices that email a code instead of a link', which clearly differentiates it from the sibling verify_sign_in_token that handles link-based authentication.

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?

It explicitly gives the usage context: 'for practices that email a code instead of a link' and notes 'Single-use'. This tells the agent when to use this tool (email-code-based sign-in) and implies not to use it for link-based flows. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., verify_sign_in_token), so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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