skylight_submit_login_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the write/open-world profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the tool is a follow-up step gated on a prior email event, the code must come from the user rather than being invented, and resend is the fallback. It does not say what happens on an invalid or expired code, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the gating condition, the safety rule, and the resend alternative in order of need. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema auth helper this covers the essentials: trigger condition, input source, failure-avoidance rule, and the resend branch. Only the post-call outcome (session established? error on bad code?) is left unstated, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it establishes that resend: true is passed *without* a code, implying mutual exclusivity between the two optional parameters, and reinforces the 6-digit format. That is genuine constraint information beyond the property descriptions.

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 and resource — 'Finish signing in to Skylight with the 6-digit login code' — and names the exact input needed. No sibling tool in the catalog does authentication, so an agent can immediately place it.

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 gives an explicit precondition ('Use only after a Skylight tool reported that a login code was emailed'), an explicit prohibition ('ask the user for the code — never guess one'), and an alternative path ('Pass resend: true (without a code)'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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