resend_email_otp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose authentication requirements (needs a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY or start_login), which is valuable. However, it does not mention rate limits, whether the previous OTP is invalidated, or behavior on invalid/expired sessions, leaving notable gaps for a side-effectful resend operation.

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 first sentence is a tight, front-loaded statement of purpose. The access note is slightly verbose but necessary for practical invocation. Overall, every sentence earns its place; it is informative without being bloated.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so complexity is low. The description covers what it does and the required access setup. It could be more explicit about deriving session_id from start_add_email, but 'Add-email session ID' plus 'in-progress email addition' provides adequate context for an agent to infer the correct flow.

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%—the single parameter session_id is already described as 'Add-email session ID.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and object: 'Resend the OTP code for an in-progress email addition.' This clearly identifies the action and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like verify_email_otp (which verifies the code) and start_add_email (which starts the process).

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 phrase 'for an in-progress email addition' gives clear context for when this should be used: after an email addition has been initiated and when a code needs to be resent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'in-progress' constraint is a strong usage signal.

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