resend_verification_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'resend the email verification code' and implies an email is sent, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the previous code is invalidated), prerequisites (e.g., the trial account must exist and be unverified), rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or 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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and usage context. However, it lacks caveats such as whether the email must belong to an existing unverified trial account or what happens if the resend fails, which would be valuable for full contextual completeness.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a clear description ('The email address used to create the trial account'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline provided by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resend') and names the exact resource ('email verification code for a trial account'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like verify_trial_email (which verifies the code) and create_trial_account (which creates the account).

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 states when to use this tool: 'if the user did not receive the code or it expired.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the trigger conditions are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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