send_email_verification_code

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the detail of sending a 6-digit code, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like email delivery reliability, potential delays, or that it modifies internal state. It provides minimal value beyond 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 short and front-loaded with the core action. It includes a list of use cases in a compact format. While no extraneous words are present, it lacks a clear structure such as parameter descriptions, which would improve readability.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success message, error handling) or how to use the code after sending. It covers the primary use but leaves out aspects like rate limits or subsequent verification steps, making it adequate but incomplete for complex scenarios.

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 low (33%), with only the context parameter having a description. The description partially explains the purpose parameter by listing three of its five enum values as use cases, adding some semantic context. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter's role, leaving gaps for email and context.

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 it sends a 6-digit verification code to an email address, identifying the verb and resource. It lists specific use cases (purchase confirmation, email verification, broker connection) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_sms_verification_code, though the name makes the channel clear.

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 provides positive usage contexts (purchase confirmation, email verification, broker connection) but offers no guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives like send_sms_verification_code or verify_code. The intended use is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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