confirm_domain_email_code

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only but non-destructive operation, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing the access requirements: a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, or an authenticated session via start_login. It does not say what a failed or already-consumed code returns, but for a write tool with annotation coverage this is solid added context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the auth/session note is clearly separated as an ACCESS block. The operational aside about restarting the server is slightly chatty but genuinely useful rather than filler.

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 write tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, prerequisites, and authentication path. It omits error/failure behaviour and sibling routing, which are the only meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (id = Domain ID, code = Verification code with a 1-10 length constraint), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only reinforces that the code comes from the corporate email; it adds no format or coupling detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (Confirm) and resource (domain email verification) plus the mechanism (submitting the emailed code), which separates it from start_domain_email_verification, check_domain_email_status, and resend_domain_email in the sibling list. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the ordering from the verb rather than being told.

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 implies the prerequisite (a code must already have been sent to the corporate email) and gives setup guidance for auth, but it never states when to call this versus the neighbouring domain-email tools or what to do if the code has expired. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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