Clear a profile PIN

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond this: the operation cannot be undone and requires a prepare/execute flow with a short-lived token. This gives an agent the critical knowledge that a single call is insufficient and that a second call with a token is mandatory, which is not conveyed by the annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose. The only minor flaw is a slight redundancy: 'Not reversible' and 'This operation cannot be undone' express the same idea twice. Otherwise, every sentence earns its place and the key procedural detail about two-phase confirmation is included.

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 destructive operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core procedure well but omits important operational details: what current_pin is for, how profile_index should be set, and what the first call returns beyond a token. An agent could likely call it correctly after inferring some details from the schema, but the description alone leaves gaps.

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%; profile_index and current_pin have no descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining the confirmation token and two-phase flow, but it does not clarify the role of current_pin or how profile_index should be supplied. The token-related prose adds some value beyond the schema, but the gap in parameter semantics remains.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the PIN lock from a profile.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvio_set_profile_pin or nuvio_delete_profile. It adds important procedural context about two-phase confirmation immediately after the purpose.

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 effectively tells an agent when to use this tool: whenever a profile's PIN lock needs to be removed. It also provides explicit call guidance, stating the operation is not reversible and must be executed in two phases with a short-lived confirmation token. It does not mention the alternative set_profile_pin, but the purpose is distinct enough that the usage context is clear.

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