resend_domain_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that with a concrete rate limit ('3 requests per minute') and explicit authentication requirements, both of which meaningfully affect how and when an agent should invoke it.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then rate limit, then a clearly labeled ACCESS block. Every sentence is functional. The ACCESS sentence is slightly long, but the structure is easy to parse.

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?

No output schema exists, but this is a simple fire-and-forget action, so return values matter little. The description supplies the auth prerequisites and rate limit an agent needs to call it correctly, leaving only sibling disambiguation as a gap.

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%, with both 'id' (Domain ID) and 'email_prefix' (enum of admin/administrator/etc.) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Resend the domain verification email'. This is clear and unambiguous about the action. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like start_domain_email_verification or resend_verification, so an agent must infer which of several resend/verification tools applies.

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?

Usage is implied (resend an already-initiated verification email) and the ACCESS paragraph gives useful prerequisite context. But it never states when to use this versus siblings such as start_domain_email_verification, resend_verification, or resend_email_otp.

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