resend_email_verification

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds only the HTTP path. It does not say whether resending invalidates a prior verification token, whether it is rate-limited, or what happens for an already-verified user — meaningful gaps for a non-idempotent, externally-visible action.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is pure redundancy with the first and the bracketed endpoint path serves little purpose for an agent. Nearly no waste, but also nearly no content.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation-adjacent, non-idempotent external action, the description should clarify outcome and preconditions; it does neither. The definition is not sufficient on its own for an agent to call this correctly in ambiguous cases.

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 100%, so all three parameters including redirectUrl and x-trace-id are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond 'for a specific user', which merely echoes the required userId parameter, 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 the action and the resource ('Resend email verification for a specific user'), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus the endpoint path. It offers no differentiation from adjacent account-email tools such as request_email_change or request_recovery_codes_reset, which an agent also has available.

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 statement of when this tool should be used rather than the other user/email-related siblings, and no prerequisites such as the user having a pending, unverified email. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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