auth_submit_code

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate a non-read, non-idempotent mutation), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: the code must be a 5-digit SMS code, and if 2FA is required but password_2fa is omitted, an error will be returned asking to retry. This discloses error behavior and input prerequisites that are not in the annotations.

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 ultra-compact, front-loaded with 'Step 2', and lists arguments in a clear format. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what each parameter means, and a key error condition. Combined with the output schema and the 'Step 2' placement, the information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully carries parameter meaning. It explains that 'code' is a 5-digit SMS code from Telegram and that 'password_2fa' is the cloud-2FA password, including the consequence of omitting it when 2FA is enabled. This is exactly what the schema lacks.

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 'Step 2: send code (and optional 2FA password)', clearly identifying the verb (send) and resource (code). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auth_request_code and auth_cancel by labeling it as step 2 in the flow.

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 'Step 2' prefix gives clear sequential context, implying this should be used after requesting a code and before other authentication steps. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the context makes this largely unambiguous.

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