nex_sms_code_fill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the wait cap (default and max 120s), timeout semantics, the onlyNew resend caveat, and the submit side effect of pressing Enter. It omits return/error behavior and what happens on timeout, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and value, then a concrete flow and per-parameter notes. It is dense but each clause carries operational meaning; only the timeout distinction sentence is slightly indirect.

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 an 8-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the flow and key parameter semantics are well covered, but the description doesn't explain what the tool returns or how failures (code not received, fill error) surface, leaving a gap for correct invocation handling.

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?

With 38% schema coverage on 8 params, the description compensates well, explaining receivedAfter (ISO with timezone), waitSeconds (default and max 120), onlyNew (only after a resend), and submit. It leaves tel, pageId, and sessionId largely to the schema (which already describes the latter two), so not fully complete.

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 – wait for one number's SMS code and type it into a page – and clarifies its distinguishing value (the code never passes through the conversation). An agent can tell this apart from nex_sms_code_get, which retrieves rather than fills.

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?

It gives an explicit step-by-step flow and conditions: set receivedAfter to the send time, use onlyNew only after a resend, submit=true presses Enter, and it distinguishes a confirmed code timeout from a purchase timeout. It doesn't explicitly compare/route against nex_sms_code_get, so it falls just short of 5.

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