simplepractice_verify_sign_in_token

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds critical behavioral details beyond that: tokens are single-use and expire after 24 hours. This helps the agent understand side effects and limitations, providing value beyond 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence delivers distinct value: purpose, input format, and token lifecycle. Efficient and well-structured.

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 without an output schema, the description covers the input format, token lifecycle, and the session outcome. It does not describe the response format, which is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.

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% and the tool description essentially repeats the same guidance about accepting the whole link or token after '#'. No additional information about the parameter is provided beyond what the schema already states.

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 a sign-in link/token), the resource (emailed link), and the outcome (Client Portal session). This distinguishes it from siblings like verify_sign_in_pin (PIN-based) and request_sign_in_link (sends the link).

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 explicit input format guidance (whole link or token after '#'), but it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as verify_sign_in_pin. Usage context is clear but no exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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