user_email_verify_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. A POST /verify endpoint implies a state-mutating verification action (possibly consuming a token, changing user status), but the description says nothing about side effects, auth requirements, idempotency, or failure modes.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the endpoint, but the title duplication ('Верификация email пользователя' after the URL) is redundant padding rather than value.

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 POST verification endpoint with a complex nested body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits auth/permission requirements, what 'verify' actually does, and how it relates to the surrounding email/password-reset verify tools.

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 nested body fields and the confirm-preview semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the bare endpoint, 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 is essentially the HTTP endpoint plus a restated Russian title ('Верификация email пользователя'), which translates to the tool's own name. No specific verb/scope detail distinguishes it from siblings like user_email_post or user_passwd_reset_verify_post. The tag/spec breadcrumbs add no purpose information.

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 guidance on when to invoke this endpoint versus the many sibling user_email_* and verify-related tools. The confirm parameter note is the only procedural hint, but it comes from the schema, not the description.

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