resend_verification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: resending OTP, default same code, option to regenerate with reset_code, and channels like voice and WhatsApp. It could mention prerequisites (active verification) or side effects, but overall it 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 concise with four sentences in Spanish. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 8 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main use case and key parameter behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning that the verification must be active or what happens on failure, but it is adequate for most scenarios.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior of reusing the same code and the effect of reset_code='1' to generate a new one. This contextualizes the parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 'Reenvía' (resends) and the resource 'código OTP a un número que ya tenía una verificación activa con verify_phone'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the prerequisite verify_phone, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it is useful when the user reports not receiving the SMS, and it explains the default behavior versus using reset_code='1'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like reset_verification, which is a sibling tool.

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