Resend Catch-All Confirmation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavior. It discloses the prerequisite that the catch-all must be unconfirmed and that an email is sent, but it does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether previous confirmation links are invalidated), error conditions, or permissions. This is adequate but minimal for a simple resend action.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundant words. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 provides the core information needed: the action, the target resource, and the state condition (unconfirmed). It could mention potential error cases or the actual email recipient, but given the low complexity, it is substantially complete.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter, catchall_id, with a description 'Catch-all ID'. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 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 action (resend a confirmation email) and the target resource (an unconfirmed catch-all), using a specific verb-plus-resource structure. It distinguishes from the sibling tool mail_forwarders_resend_confirmation by explicitly mentioning 'catch-all' rather than 'forwarder'.

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 gives clear context: it is for resending a confirmation email when the catch-all is unconfirmed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is specific enough to guide selection among mail-related siblings.

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