Hub Pair

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses meaningful behavior: the code is one-time, it links an account to a person, the owner's code goes to the phone page rather than the agent text, and a friend's code comes back for relay. It does not explain expiry or permission behavior, but it adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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 two focused sentences with no obvious filler, and the important owner-versus-friend distinction is front-loaded. The wording is slightly indirect, but it remains compact for the workflow it describes.

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 two-parameter pairing tool with no annotations, the description covers the workflow and code-delivery routing reasonably well. It remains incomplete because it never explains the required `person` argument or the `minutes` expiry parameter, and the generating action is only implied.

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 0%, and the description never defines what the required `person` argument should contain or what the `minutes` parameter controls. It adds no concrete parameter meaning beyond the schema's types and default.

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 explains that the tool concerns a one-time pairing code linking an account to a person and how that code is used. However, it does not explicitly say this tool generates or returns the code for the supplied person, so the action is inferable but not crisp, and no sibling tool is named.

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 pairing workflow and the owner-versus-friend code routing imply when to use this tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use rule, prerequisite, or alternative comparison with other hub_* tools, leaving selection partly inferred.

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