Confirm login code

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a side effect (saving a session on the device), which is useful. However, it does not mention failure modes, code expiration, overwriting existing sessions, or any required permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core operation, and the second explains the session-saving side effect and downstream capabilities. No redundant or filler content.

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 login-confirmation tool with two well-documented parameters, the description gives a clear result (session saved) and its benefits. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., must have sent the SMS first) and details about error handling, but given the simple scope and the schema coverage, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the SMS code is entered, and does not clarify formats, constraints, or relationships between the phone number and the code beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Enter the SMS code to sign in') and the consequence ('Saves your session on this device so you can list parcels and open lockers'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'inpost_consumer_login_send_sms' and other tools by specifying the login confirmation step and its resulting capabilities.

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 after receiving an SMS code, but does not explicitly reference the prerequisite step (send_sms) or provide guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like login_sessions or logout. It gives context but lacks clear exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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