simplepractice_request_sign_in_link

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

With only readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description carries full behavioral burden and exceeds it. It discloses that a real email is sent, that rate limits apply per email and per IP, that confirm:true is required, and that the API deliberately gives identical responses for unknown addresses.

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?

Four tightly written sentences deliver the action, the reason this tool exists, the side effects and preconditions, and a critical caveat about false confidence. Nothing is wasted and the most important operational facts are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the action, real-world side effect, rate limiting, confirmation requirement, the practice parameter's optionality, and the ambiguous success signal. With no output schema, this is sufficient context for an agent to call the tool safely and interpret results appropriately.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: confirm exists because the action sends real email and is rate-limited, and practice is only needed when the server has not yet learned the practice from a prior sign-in.

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 states a precise action — 'Ask SimplePractice to email a sign-in link to a Client Portal address' — and immediately distinguishes the tool's role: it sends the email that starts the sign-in process. It is clearly differentiated from sibling verification tools like verify_sign_in_token and verify_sign_in_pin.

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?

It clearly frames when to use the tool: the portal has no password, so this email link is the sign-in method. It also warns about rate limits and the need for confirmation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as verifying a token or PIN after the link is used.

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