resend_confirmation

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: true) indicate a non-read, non-destructive but open-world operation. The description reinforces this by stating it sends an email and explains the email address handling. It adds context beyond annotations by specifying the side effect of sending and the optional re-routing.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes necessary usage details without extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary use case, explains the optional parameter, and mentions a prerequisite tool (lookup_booking). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds practical use-case detail for updated_email (typo or inaccessible email), which is helpful but not essential beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Resend a hotel reservation confirmation email') and the specific resource (confirmation email). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by instructing to use after verifying identity with lookup_booking, providing a clear sequential context.

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 explicitly advises using this tool after looking up the guest's identity, and explains when to use the updated_email parameter (typo or inaccessible email). While it doesn't list alternative tools for when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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