passkey_login_verify

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool verifies an assertion and returns an auth session, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., session creation), error handling, or whether it modifies state. The description adds moderate context but is not exhaustive.

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?

Single sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary information. Every word adds value.

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?

Description mentions the return type (auth session) but lacks details on failure modes, prerequisites, or the fact that the 'response' parameter is not required in schema but critical for operation. Without output schema, more context on the return structure would be helpful.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not elaborate on how to obtain the challenge_id or format the response.

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 verb 'Verify' and the resource 'browser WebAuthn assertion', and specifies the output 'return a normal Run402 auth session'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like passkey_register_verify or passkey_login_options.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after passkey_login_options, nor any prerequisites like having a challenge_id from that tool. The description lacks context for proper sequencing.

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