resend_email_verification

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: write operation requiring scope, no-op condition, and return format. It does not mention rate limits or error cases, but for a simple resend tool this is sufficiently transparent.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, scope, behavior, and return. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. Front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, prerequisites, no-op behavior, and return value. It is fully adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage trivially. The description adds value by confirming no input and explaining the target is the authenticated account, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero 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 the verb 'Resend' and the resource 'account's email-address verification email'. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are mostly get/list or other mutate operations, with no other email verification tool present.

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 specifies required scope ('account:write'), states it is a plain write action, and notes that it is a no-op if already verified. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., check verification status via get_account).

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