resend_verification

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

Annotations establish a non-read-only, non-destructive write, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: email-channel scope, that a NEW code is generated and sent, and that a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY is required. It omits whether the previous code is invalidated, code expiry, and rate limits, which matter for a 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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact ACCESS block; every line is relevant, including the 'start_login does NOT open this tool' disambiguation. Slightly verbose in the setup instructions but not wasteful.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, channel, and auth prerequisites, which is reasonable. It leaves out the behavior an agent would want before triggering a new verification code: whether the prior code is invalidated, expiry, and any send limits.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Verification ID', so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for that ID, making the baseline 3 correct.

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+resource ('Resend a verification message') plus the scope qualifier '(email channel only)' and the effect 'Generates and sends a new code'. It does not differentiate from the closely named siblings resend_email_otp and resend_domain_email, so an agent may hesitate between them.

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 – you resend when a code needs regenerating – but the description never states when to choose this over resend_email_otp, resend_domain_email, or create_verification. The ACCESS block addresses how to enable the tool, not when it is the right tool.

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