Request Team Verification

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces idempotency ('calling again while a request is pending does not create a duplicate') and adds real context: it mutates state, requires GROWSURF_API_KEY, does not require GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID, and returns the team with updated verificationStatus. It goes beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't note latency or approval timing.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and condition, then idempotency, then return value and auth requirements. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant 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 zero-parameter mutation with a declared output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, precondition, idempotency, auth requirements, and return shape. Return-value detail is delegated appropriately to the output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description carries no argument semantics to document and the baseline is 4. It still usefully clarifies the environment-variable prerequisites (API key required, campaign ID not), which are the only inputs relevant to this call.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (the team bound to the API key/OAuth connection), which clearly separates it from siblings like growsurf_get_team or growsurf_resend_team_owner_verification_email. An agent can tell what action this triggers without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — verification is required before a program can email participants — which signals when the tool is needed. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast sibling alternatives (e.g. resend_team_owner_verification_email), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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