auth_resend_otpResend the verification code to the patient's email. Use this if the original code expired (5-minute window) or was not received.
Requires the session_id from auth_start — no email needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Session ID from auth_start |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation and destructiveness (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds context about the session_id requirement and the 5-minute expiry, but doesn't elaborate on side effects such as invalidating the previous code. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and then providing usage context and a prerequisite. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema available), the description covers purpose, usage condition, parameter prerequisite, and recipient (email). It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already explains session_id as 'Session ID from auth_start'. The description adds 'no email needed,' which clarifies the parameter set slightly, but otherwise adds little meaning beyond the schema.
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: 'Resend the verification code to the patient's email.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context of resending OTP is distinct from sibling tools like auth_verify_otp and auth_start.
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 gives explicit conditions for use: 'Use this if the original code expired (5-minute window) or was not received.' It also notes that only session_id is required. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear boundaries, such as auth_* for authentication, checkout_* for payment, and portal_* for patient portal actions. However, there is some overlap between checkout_status and auth_check_payment (both involve polling for payment status) and between portal_support and portal_message (both for communication), which could cause minor confusion.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with clear prefixes grouping related tools (e.g., auth_, checkout_, consent_, intake_, medications_, order_, portal_, provider_). This predictable structure makes it easy to understand the tool set's organization and purpose.
With 34 tools, the count is borderline high for a telehealth server, as it may feel heavy and complex for agents to navigate. While the tools cover a comprehensive workflow from authentication to patient portal, some consolidation (e.g., merging similar polling tools) could improve usability without losing functionality.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the telehealth domain, including authentication, eligibility checks, medication browsing, intake, consent, checkout, order management, and patient portal features. There are no obvious gaps; agents can handle the entire patient journey from start to ongoing care without dead ends.