user_email_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP method. It does not explain permissions required, side effects of verification, or what the confirm/preview semantics mean for this operation (that detail lives only in the schema).

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 text is short but is padded with raw spec metadata ('Тег: Пользователи', 'Спека: user') that provides no actionable value. The content is an unedited OpenAPI export rather than a front-loaded, purposeful description.

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 mutation tool with a nested body object, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It leaves critical operational context (authorization, reversibility, verification flow) undocumented.

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 documents the body, confirm, and user_id parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter syntax or interaction, so 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Верифицировать email пользователя' = verify user email), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as user_email_verify_post, user_email_put, user_email_get, or user_email_delete, and the leading 'POST /user/email' is a raw spec dump rather than meaningful description.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives. Given the crowded user_email_* sibling set, an agent receives no signal about when this POST is preferable to user_email_verify_post or others.

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