ride_login_send

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It earns credit for a genuinely important disclosure — that a real SMS/call is dispatched, implying external side effects and likely rate/cost limits — but says nothing about auth requirements, retry behavior, OTP expiry, or what happens on repeated calls.

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 front-loaded clause with zero filler; the parenthetical side-effect note is well placed. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects thin content rather than disciplined editing.

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?

A mutation tool with real-world side effects, six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not come close to supplying what an agent needs to invoke this safely or 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?

Six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Phone, token, and the four captcha-* fields are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess at required values and formats.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Send ride OTP'), which is enough to distinguish it from verification/refresh siblings like ride_login_verify and ride_login_refresh. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not differentiated.

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?

Nothing tells the agent when to call this versus ride_login_verify, ride_login_import, or food_login_send. The workflow (send OTP, then verify) must be inferred from sibling names rather than from the description.

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