pplx_auth_complete

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that on success the session token is saved and all pplx_* tools work, plus the subscription tier. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or rate limits.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a usage line, parameter breakdown, and return info. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 auth tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the workflow, parameter meanings, and outcome (session token saved, all tools work, subscription tier). It is complete enough for an agent to execute successfully.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: 'email' is identified as the account email matching pplx_auth_request_code, and 'code' is explained as a 6-digit verification code. This compensates fully for the lack of schema 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 clearly states 'Complete Perplexity authentication with the verification code', specifying the verb (complete) and resource (authentication). It distinguishes from siblings like pplx_auth_request_code (requests code) and pplx_auth_status (checks status).

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?

Explicitly instructs to use the code after calling pplx_auth_request_code, providing a clear prerequisite. It does not state when not to use, but the context is sufficiently clear for the intended use case.

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