session_requestPairingCode

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the intent to request authentication. It doesn't mention side effects like sending a code to the phone, changing session state, or requiring specific permissions, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's impact.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and resource. It avoids redundancy and is easily readable, though it is minimal and could be expanded with useful context without becoming verbose.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a pairing code), any prerequisites, or behavioral side effects, which is particularly critical for an authentication-related action.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema, covering sessionId, phoneNumber, and showNotification. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Request authentication via pairing code') and the resource (Session), distinguishing it from other session tools like session_qr or session_start. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools that offer alternative authentication methods.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus session_qr or other authentication methods. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as an active session, or when pairing code is preferred over QR-based authentication.

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