resend_verification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool generates and sends a new code, is email-only, requires a Proof account and PROOF_API_KEY, and is not opened via start_login. It does not mention side effects like invalidating previous codes or rate limits, but the core behavior and prerequisites are clearly stated.

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 with the main purpose, followed by a short access note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: action, effect, channel, prerequisite, and a relevant exclusion. It could briefly mention what the caller should expect in return, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter, id, as 'Verification ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about how to obtain the ID or what format it should take, so it stays at the baseline for well-covered schema parameters.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it resends a verification message and generates/sends a new code. It also scopes itself to email-only, which helps separate it from multi-channel verification tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling like resend_email_otp.

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 gives useful context and exclusions: email channel only, requires a Proof account, and start_login does NOT open this tool. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, but the conditions and non-goals are explicit enough to guide selection.

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