resend_confirmationRe-send the double-opt-in confirmation to a signup that has not confirmed yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | the unconfirmed signup email to re-send to | ||
| testId | Yes | demand test id the signup belongs to |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / email / descriptionAdded value: +"the unconfirmed signup email to re-send to"Input schema / properties / testId / descriptionAdded value: +"demand test id the signup belongs to"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-idempotent and open-world behavior. The description adds the condition (unconfirmed signup) but does not disclose further traits like potential errors, rate limits, or consequences of re-sending. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place: verb, resource, condition.
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 has only two parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and condition. It could mention return value or errors but is complete for a simple tool.
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 each parameter is well-described in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning or usage context beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 (re-send), the resource (double-opt-in confirmation email), and the condition (to unconfirmed signup). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like 'send_email' and 'resend_intake_invite' through specificity.
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 implies usage for unconfirmed signups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance. Context is present but not fully elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.