simplepractice_verify_sign_in_token

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, and the description explains the destructive behavior: tokens are single-use and expire after 24 hours. It also adds stateful context by noting the server remembers the practice afterward. This does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each dense with distinct useful information, with the primary action stated first. There is no filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, acceptable input forms, the preferred input form, token lifecycle, and server behavior. Nothing material appears to be missing for correct 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?

Although the schema already documents the link parameter, the description adds non-obvious meaning: passing the whole link is preferred over the token, with a clear reason involving practice identification and server memory. This materially helps the agent choose the correct input form.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Exchange an emailed sign-in link ... for a Client Portal session.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like request_sign_in_link and verify_sign_in_pin by focusing on link/token exchange into a session.

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 gives clear invocation guidance: prefer passing the whole link because its address names the practice, avoids configuration, and is remembered by the server. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions like PIN-based verification, so it stops short of a 5.

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