textverified_send_sms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool sends an SMS (external side effect) and that explicit confirmation is required, which is useful, but it omits permissions, cost, irreversibility, rate limits, and what happens if confirm_send is false.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key precondition. No filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage. It leaves auth, cost, delivery behavior, and confirmation semantics unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'from a rented number' to reservation_id and 'requires explicit confirmation' to confirm_send, but gives no format or meaning for send_to and content, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 ('Send') and resource ('SMS') and scopes it to a rented number, which cleanly separates it from read-oriented siblings like textverified_list_sms. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 only guidance is 'requires explicit confirmation,' which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule. It does not say when to choose this over textverified_request or other messaging tools, nor when not to use it.

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