confirm_domain_email_code

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful access prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, failure behavior, or whether confirming the code fully verifies the domain. For a mutating action, this is a significant gap.

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 compact and well-structured: the first line states the action, and the second paragraph covers access requirements. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter tool with fully documented schema, the description is adequate and includes an important access note. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not clarify what the confirmation returns, whether it is the final step in the domain email verification flow, or what happens on success or failure.

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 already fully documents both parameters: id as 'Domain ID' and code as 'Verification code from the email'. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 a specific action: confirming domain email verification by submitting the emailed code. The verb 'confirm' plus resource 'domain email verification' and method 'submitting the code' make the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like start_domain_email_verification or check_domain_email_status.

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 a clear access precondition (Proof account, API key, or start_login session) and implies the tool is used after a code is sent to a corporate email. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related alternatives, leaving the usage timing to inference.

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