pplx_auth_complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that on success the session token is saved and all pplx_* tools will work. It does not detail failure modes or rate limits, but the behavioral outcome is sufficiently described.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then structured with Args/Returns. It is concise overall, though the Args/Returns section is somewhat verbose but standard for readability.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately does not detail return values beyond status message and subscription tier. It covers the prerequisite, parameters, and post-condition. Slightly more detail on failure would improve completeness.

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 adds meaning by explaining each parameter: email is the account email from the prior step, code is the 6-digit verification code, totp_code is for TOTP authentication. This provides context beyond the schema's raw definitions.

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 ('Complete') and resource ('Perplexity authentication with the verification code'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool pplx_auth_request_code by referencing the prerequisite step. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool: after calling pplx_auth_request_code with the received 6-digit code. It implies the alternative (requesting the code if not done), though it does not explicitly say when not to use it. The context is clear enough.

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