nws_verify

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never says whether the code is single-use, how long it is valid, whether a session/token is established and persists, or what an invalid code does — all critical for an auth-completing mutation.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and then the input source. Nothing is 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is covered. But for an authentication step with no annotations, the missing flow position and failure/expiry behavior leave the agent under-informed relative to the tool's consequence.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the lone parameter, and it does: the 'code' is the verification code received by email, which tells the agent where the value comes from. Format details (length, digits vs. alphanumeric) remain unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (verify/finish) and resource (NWS authentication) plus the mechanism: the email verification code. It is distinguishable from generic siblings, but it never names its counterpart 'nws_authenticate', which the agent must call first.

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 phrase 'the verification code received by email' implies this is the second step of an authentication flow, so timing is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement to run it after nws_authenticate rather than nws_app_authenticate, and no note on what to do if verification fails.

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