rivian_submit_otp

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the code arrives out-of-band via phone/email, but says nothing about failure behavior, code expiry, retry/rate limits, or what successful completion changes (session state).

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?

A single 14-word sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler; nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 flow-completion tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete — a user knows what to send and why. It would be fully complete if it named rivian_login as the required predecessor.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'The verification code'. The description adds only the delivery channel (phone or email) and no format guidance (length, digits vs alphanumeric), so per the high-coverage baseline this sits at 3.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Complete Rivian sign-in') and explains the OTP's origin (phone or email), so an agent understands it is the second step of authentication rather than the initiator. It does not explicitly name rivian_login as the sibling it follows, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Complete Rivian sign-in' and 'the verification code sent to your phone or email' — the agent can infer this runs after a code is issued. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no stated prerequisite tool, and no mention of what to do if the code is missing or expired.

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