submit_mfa_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the trigger (MFA error) and the action (submit code to complete authentication), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether submitting an incorrect code locks the account, whether the code expires, or what the response contains on success/failure. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then provides context and parameter details in a clear, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place: the trigger condition, the source of the code, and the parameter explanation. No fluff or 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 single-parameter authentication tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains the trigger, the parameter, and the goal. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The only minor gap is the lack of error-handling details (e.g., what happens on invalid/expired code), but this is not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that 'code' is the 6-digit verification code from email, adding format (6-digit) and source (email) beyond the schema's bare 'Code' title. This is meaningful semantic enrichment. A score of 4 is appropriate because it fully clarifies the only parameter, though it could have added examples or validation details.

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 the tool's purpose: submitting a 6-digit MFA verification code to complete ParentSquare login. It uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('MFA verification code'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all data-retrieval or management operations. The context about when it is used (after an MFA error) further clarifies its unique role.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a ParentSquare tool returns an MFA error and a verification code is sent to email. It explains the workflow (check email, submit code). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list makes it obvious that this is the only authentication tool. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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