authentication_authenticate_instruction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the token is one-time and that caller identity is restricted, but it does not explain what happens on success or failure, whether the token is consumed, or how the instruction state changes after authentication.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the access restriction earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 security-sensitive two-factor authentication operation, the description is thin. It lacks the expected success/failure behavior, token validity details, and enough guidance for an agent to understand the full authentication flow, especially with no output schema to clarify return values.

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 only 50%: token is documented as 'One-time token' but instructionId has no description. The tool description does not clarify what instructionId refers to or how it relates to the token, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 clear action ('Submit a one-time token') and a specific resource ('Instruction Two-Factor Authentication'). It also adds a scope constraint ('Only the instruction creator can call this'), which helps distinguish this from the related sibling authentication_authenticate_scheduled_instruction.

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 gives an access precondition ('Only the instruction creator can call this') and implies it is for authenticating an instruction rather than a scheduled instruction, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus the scheduled-instruction sibling or describes the surrounding authentication flow.

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