share_request_email

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real value beyond that: it clarifies the side effect is an email notification (not a data change) and discloses the required account/key setup and login prerequisite. It stops short of stating idempotency or rate limits for repeated sends.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence with zero waste. The ACCESS block is longer boilerplate but is genuinely actionable (env var, login flow) rather than filler.

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-param notification tool with no output schema and clear annotations, purpose plus auth prerequisites cover what an agent needs. Missing only alternative-tool routing, which is a minor gap at this 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?

Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage ('Verification request ID'). The description implies the target is the request's subject but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (send email notification) and the precise resource/recipient (subject of a verification request), so the agent knows exactly what effect it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling notification tools (resend_verification, resend_domain_email, send_account_email), leaving that inference to the agent.

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 rather than stated: the tool notifies the subject of an existing verification request. The description instead devotes its guidance to auth prerequisites (PROOF_API_KEY, start_login), which is useful context but not a when-to-use/when-not or alternative-selection rule.

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