Reorder email address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two critical behaviors: it spends from the wallet again and requires an API key. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether the previous OTP is invalidated, rate limits, or what happens to the existing activation state. This is decent but incomplete for a mutation-like 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?

The description is a single sentence with the purpose front-loaded, followed by a critical warning and a requirement. There is no fluff, and the structure efficiently conveys the most important information first.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, cost, and prerequisite (id origin). It does not state what the tool returns, but given the simplicity and the analogous request_resend sibling, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is mostly complete.

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 already describes the single parameter 'id' with 100% coverage ('Email activation id (from email_request or email_list)'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying the id corresponds to an existing email activation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action: 'Re-open the same email address for another OTP'. It also explicitly names the sibling equivalent (SMS request_resend), which distinguishes it from email_request (new email) and email_cancel. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 when to use it (when you need another OTP for an existing email activation) by referencing the id source from email_request or email_list and calling it the email equivalent of request_resend. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like email_request or email_cancel, leaving some inference to the agent.

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