resend_domain_email

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses a rate limit of 3 requests per minute and an authentication prerequisite with a concrete recovery path, which are important behavioral details often omitted. It does not mention idempotency or failure behavior, but the core side effect is clear from the action itself.

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 front-loaded: one sentence defines the action, followed immediately by the rate limit, then the access prerequisite. The access note is slightly long but each part earns its place by telling the agent how to authenticate and when to retry.

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 simple two-parameter resend tool, the description covers the action, rate limit, and authentication path. It does not explain what a successful response looks like or state that the domain email verification must already be in progress, which would be useful since no output schema is provided and the domain workflow has several stages.

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 documents both parameters (id and email_prefix) with 100% coverage, including the enum for email_prefix. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it correctly relies on the schema; 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resend the domain verification email.' This clearly identifies the action and object, distinguishing it from sibling verification tools like verify_domain or start_domain_verification by emphasizing the resend action. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear invocation context by stating the rate limit and the Proof account requirement, including how to obtain access via PROOF_API_KEY or start_login and then retry. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as start_domain_email_verification or resend_verification; usage timing is only implied by the 'resend' verb.

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