Register verification email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and external-effect profile is covered. The description restates only that an email is sent and adds nothing beyond annotations – no mention of what happens on unknown addresses, throttling, or side effects on the account state.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned by efficiency. It is concise without being informative.

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 mutating, open-world tool with three unspecified parameters and no output schema, the description omits the request shape, the required payload, and the success/failure behavior. Sections like parameters and error conditions that other tools would delegate to the schema here have no source at all.

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?

All three parameters (form, params, json_body) have 0% schema description coverage and untyped defaults, and the description says nothing about what must go into them. With three undocumented parameters and a one-line description, the agent has no way to construct a valid call.

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 ('send') and resource ('registration email-verification code'), so an agent can tell this triggers an outbound verification email rather than verifying a token. It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings such as vaultwarden_post_verify_email or vaultwarden_register_finish, leaving ambiguity at the boundaries.

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 this should be called versus verify_email/register_finish/resend_invite, no prerequisites (e.g. must be mid-registration, must supply an email), and no notes on rate limiting or repeated sends. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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