Post verify email

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the outbound side effect is partially structured. The description adds only that a link is resent to the current email; it says nothing about rate limiting on email sends, behavior when the email is already verified, or that no verification state changes until the token is used.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure concision.

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 an outbound-email mutation with a fully undocumented three-parameter wrapper schema and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently or predict the result. It should at minimum state that no body is required and what the caller sees on success.

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?

Three parameters (form, params, json_body) exist with 0% schema description coverage and no type information. The description's 'for current email' weakly implies no email argument is needed, but it never explains what should go in any of the three slots or whether they may be omitted entirely.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('request email verification' / 'resend verify link') and scopes it to the current user's email. This meaningfully separates it from sibling vaultwarden_post_verify_email_token (which consumes a token), though that sibling is never named.

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 parenthetical 'resend verify link' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (must be authenticated), and no routing away from the many email-related siblings (post_verify_email_token, register_verification_email, send_email, post_email).

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