verify_magic_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: creating a user if they don't exist, token single-use, and expiry. This is valuable transparency, though it doesn't cover all potential side effects (e.g., rate limits).

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, side effect, token constraints. It is front-loaded with the primary function and contains no unnecessary words.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the return values (access_token + refresh_token). It also covers the token's lifecycle. It lacks error conditions but is sufficient for a simple token exchange tool with well-documented parameters.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (token and project_id) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 exchanges a magic link token for tokens, with a specific verb and resource (exchange, token). It also mentions creating a user if not existing, which distinguishes it from similar auth tools like request_magic_link.

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 implicitly conveys usage context by stating token properties (single-use, 15-min expiry) and the result (access+refresh tokens). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent given the sibling tools.

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