simplepractice_verify_sign_in_pin

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which already warns of state changes. The description adds useful context beyond that: the PIN is single-use, meaning it is consumed and cannot be reused. It also clarifies the scenario (email code vs. link). No contradiction with annotations; the destructive hint is consistent with 'single-use'.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the critical qualifier (email-code vs. link) and the side-effect (single-use). No wasted words or redundant information; 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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and moderately rich annotations. The description covers the purpose, the scenario, and the side-effect (single-use). It does not describe return values or error behavior, but these are not expected for such a simple tool. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though naming the alternative tool would make it more robust.

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%: email has a description, but pin does not. The description adds some semantic context by calling the PIN a 'Client Portal sign-in PIN' and clarifying it is the emailed code, which gives the pin parameter meaning beyond the regex pattern. However, this is largely redundant with the pattern and does not fully compensate for the missing pin description in the schema. Baseline of 3 seems appropriate given the medium coverage and slight added value.

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 clearly states the action ('Exchange'), the resource ('6-digit Client Portal sign-in PIN'), and the outcome ('for a session'). It also specifies the context ('for practices that email a code instead of a link'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_sign_in_token or request_sign_in_link. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 provides a clear condition for use ('for practices that email a code instead of a link'), which implicitly differentiates it from link-based flows. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., verify_sign_in_token), so the exclusion guidance is implied rather than direct. This is strong context but lacks an explicit 'use X instead' statement.

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