growsurf_request_team_verification

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by specifying that repeated calls during a pending request do not create duplicates (aligning with idempotentHint) and that it returns the team with its updated verificationStatus. It also notes the API key requirement, which is not in the annotations. No contradictions with the provided annotations.

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 at three sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, idempotency, and return behavior. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when it's needed, its idempotency, its return value, and its prerequisites. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values further. It could explicitly mention that this is different from resending the verification email, but that is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific context. Per the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description does not miss any parameter documentation responsibilities.

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 action ('Ask GrowSurf to verify the team') and the specific resource (team bound to API key or OAuth connection). It also explains the purpose ('Verification is required before a program can email participants'), distinguishing it from other tools like growsurf_get_team or growsurf_resend_team_owner_verification_email.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (before emailing participants) and mentions idempotency ('Calling this again while a request is pending does not create a duplicate'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling resend email tool, the requirement statement implies the appropriate use case.

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