send_signup_otp

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that no API key is required; it does not disclose side effects such as sending an SMS, OTP expiration, retry/resend behavior, rate limits, or what the API returns. For a side-effectful 'send' tool, this is a significant transparency 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?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the auth note is a single extra phrase. Every word contributes.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a simple send operation, but with no output schema and no annotations it omits expected return values, error conditions, and any state change/expiry information. An agent can call it correctly for the basic happy path but lacks context for handling failures or next steps.

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 50%: phone_number is described, but email only has a format. The description adds no direct parameter semantics, though 'phone verification OTP' helps clarify that phone_number is the delivery target and email is the signup identity. This is adequate for two simple parameters but does not go beyond schema content.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send'), names the exact resource ('ClawdCall signup phone verification OTP'), and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like verify_signup_otp, which handles a later verification step. 'Does not require an API key' adds useful context without obscuring the core function.

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 'ClawdCall signup phone verification' establishes when the tool should be used. The explicit no-API-key note is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name verify_signup_otp as the follow-up or state when not to use this tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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