simplepractice_verify_sign_in_token

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

The annotations only say readOnly=false and idempotent=false. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: tokens are single-use, last 24 hours, and the server remembers the practice from the full link. This is precisely the kind of context an agent needs before calling a session-exchange 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?

Three focused sentences: core action first, then input forms, then preference with rationale. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter auth exchange tool with no output schema, the description covers input format, preference, token lifecycle, and expected outcome—'Client Portal session.' Nothing needed to correctly select and invoke the tool is missing.

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?

The schema only describes the parameter as the sign-in link or token after '#'. The description enriches this substantially by explaining how to format the input, why the whole link is preferred, and what happens when each form is used.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Exchange an emailed sign-in link ... for a Client Portal session.' It also clarifies the acceptable input forms, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like simplepractice_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 gives clear context: this tool is for emailed sign-in links or tokens, and it explicitly advises preferring the whole link because it avoids needing a configured practice. It does not explicitly name alternatives like verify_sign_in_pin, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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