baasix_send_magic_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Send' without explaining side effects, whether a code can be returned in the response, whether an existing user is required, or any rate-limit/expiration behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a side-effecting 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple operation, though it sacrifices useful behavioral context for brevity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what happens after sending, whether the code is returned to the caller or only emailed, or whether there are preconditions like an existing user. An agent would need to guess at the expected outcome.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds a slight semantic tie between 'link or code' and the mode parameter, but does not materially enrich the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') plus a concrete resource ('magic link or code') and states the purpose ('for authentication'). It is clear enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from baasix_send_invite.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as baasix_login, baasix_register_user, or baasix_send_invite. The intended triggering condition and prerequisites are left entirely to inference.

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