authenticate_with_otp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs authentication but doesn't mention whether it's a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how it handles errors, or what the output looks like. For an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of authentication (which involves security and state changes) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving critical gaps for an agent to operate this tool safely and effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('email' and 'collection') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between email and OTP or the purpose of the collection parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('authenticate') and the method ('with one-time password'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authenticate_user' or 'authenticate_with_oauth2'. However, it doesn't specify what resource or system is being authenticated against, leaving some ambiguity about the target.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'authenticate_with_oauth2' or 'authenticate_user'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether OTP must be pre-generated) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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