start_operator_passkey_enrollment

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: the link is short-lived, sent to verified contact email, and requires email_verified. It does not cover rate limits or what happens if already enrolled, but for a simple action, this is adequate.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. All information is front-loaded and necessary.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, precondition (email_verified), and key property (link short-lived). Minor omission: what the tool returns or confirms after sending. However, it is largely complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description provides context about the email requirement.

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 action: emailing a short-lived enrollment link for a Run402 operator passkey. It specifies the recipient (verified contact email) and distinguishes from other passkey tools that handle user-facing operations.

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 implies usage when email_verified is true, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like passkey_register_options or other enrollment methods. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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