auth_send_code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the side effect (SMS dispatch), one-time code semantics, phone-number normalization, and the fact that no password is needed. It does not mention rate limits, expiration, error cases, or whether the code is returned in the response.

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 short sentences that front-load the action and accepted input, then give the follow-up step. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or boilerplate.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation details and the next step in the flow. It is slightly incomplete in not explicitly describing the response shape or failure behavior, but the flow instruction implies the code arrives and is passed along.

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 provides only the phone string with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does: the accepted phone formats are specified, which is exactly the semantic an agent needs to format the parameter correctly.

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?

States a specific action (send SMS with one-time code), the target resource (phone number), and the authentication context. The instruction to pass the code to auth_login distinguishes it from sibling auth tools.

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?

Clearly establishes the phone-verification flow: send a code, then pass it to auth_login, and notes that account password is not needed. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or compare it with auth_status/auth_logout, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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