Resend contact verification

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description is consistent with them. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the title—nothing about rate limits, whether it changes verification state, or what the caller sees on success. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description contributes almost nothing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized. It is near-optimal for conciseness, though it is arguably terse given the missing usage context.

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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits what the tool actually does to state (sends an email), expected outcome, and any rate-limit or eligibility preconditions an agent would need.

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% with a single enum parameter (account/support/security), so the schema fully documents the input. The description only says 'a tailnet contact' and does not enrich the meaning of contactType, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (resend) and resource (verification email for a tailnet contact), which lets an agent distinguish it from the similarly-named resend_device_invite and resend_user_invite siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool: no prerequisites (e.g., the contact must exist and be unverified), no mention of the alternatives (get_contacts, set_contacts), and no exclusions. The single clause only restates the action.

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