instagram_complete_challenge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action of submitting the code but does not disclose outcomes (e.g., whether it logs in, returns session data, or errors). Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 sentence, direct and to the point. Every word is necessary with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is part of a login flow with a specific trigger. The description covers the trigger but not the expected output or error conditions. Since there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but completeness is moderate given lack of behavioral details.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'email/SMS challenge code' for the 'code' parameter, adding context that it is a code received via email or SMS. However, it does not specify format or validation requirements, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 tool submits an email/SMS challenge code after login returns 'needs_challenge'. It specifies the verb 'submit', the resource 'challenge code', and the context (login challenge). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'instagram_complete_2fa', which handles a different authentication step.

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 specifies the condition for use: after login returned 'needs_challenge'. This clearly indicates when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is specific enough.

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