authentication_authenticate_scheduled_instruction

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral information. It discloses two meaningful traits: the token is one-time and the call is creator-only. It does not say what happens on success or failure, whether the token is consumed on failed attempts, or what the response contains, which leaves gaps for an authentication tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action and the key restriction front-loaded. Every clause contributes information.

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 simple and the two parameters are named clearly, but there is no output schema and no mention of expected success or error behavior, or the exact role of scheduledInstructionId. The description gives a usable start, but an agent would still have to guess about outcomes.

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 coverage, the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to token ('one-time') but says nothing directly about scheduledInstructionId beyond what can be inferred from the resource and tool names. For a two-parameter schema this is borderline adequate.

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 names the exact action ('Submit a one-time token') and the resource ('Scheduled Instruction Two-Factor Authentication'), so an agent can tell it apart from generic approval tools. It does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling authentication_authenticate_instruction, leaving differentiation to the word 'Scheduled'.

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 clear usage context: this is the 2FA step for scheduled instructions and is restricted to the creator. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for the main use case.

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