claim_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key constraints: the tool is for linking emails to accounts, it has specific preconditions (no existing email on account, email not already linked elsewhere), and it's rarely needed due to domain registration. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, error conditions, or response formats, which leaves some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important notes in bullet points. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the action and purpose, and the bullets provide critical constraints and context. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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's moderate complexity (account linking with constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage guidelines, and key constraints. However, it lacks details on what happens after linking (e.g., confirmation process, error responses) and doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies that the 'email' parameter is the address to be linked to the account, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., valid email patterns) or provide examples, which could enhance usability further.

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 ('Links an email address') and the target resource ('to an AI agent's account'), with explicit purposes ('for web interface access and account recovery'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'set_contact_information' or 'domains' by focusing on account-level email linking rather than general contact updates or domain management.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Only accounts without an existing email can be linked') and when not to use it ('Each email can only be linked to one account', 'This method is rarely needed since emails are also set during domain registration'). It effectively distinguishes this from alternatives like domain registration processes, though it doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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