cancel_email_changeCancel pending email verification or replacement and invalidate its codes. Preserve an already verified email and its recovery authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| op_key | Yes | Operation key you choose, 8 to 128 characters. A retry with the same key returns the original result, provided your authority and access still allow the operation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what is destroyed ('invalidate its codes') and what survives ('Preserve an already verified email and its recovery authority') — useful outcome detail not derivable from the hints.
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?
Two compact sentences, no wasted words, and the cancel action plus destruction scope is front-loaded ahead of the preservation guarantee.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description conveys the key outcome (codes invalidated, verified email preserved) and the annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. It is nearly complete; only the success/failure return shape is left implicit.
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?
With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents op_key including the idempotent retry behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Cancel') and resource ('pending email verification or replacement'), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like resend_email_verification. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the resource specificity leaves no real ambiguity about what it does.
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 the conditional phrasing 'Cancel pending email verification or replacement', which tells the agent the tool applies to in-flight changes. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling handles adjacent flows (resend, recover), so routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.