Resend Forwarder Confirmation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sends a confirmation email and applies to unconfirmed forwarders, but it does not describe error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., forwarder existence), or side effects beyond the resend. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a mutation operation.

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 front-loads the action and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about success/failure behavior, preconditions, or what happens if the forwarder is already confirmed. For a mutation operation, more context would improve 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 input schema has 100% description coverage: forwarder_id is described as 'Forwarder ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 specific action: 'Resend the confirmation email for an unconfirmed forwarder.' It includes a clear verb ('resend'), a specific resource (confirmation email for a forwarder), and a condition (unconfirmed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_catchalls_resend_confirmation by explicitly targeting forwarders.

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 mentions the tool is for unconfirmed forwarders, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., mail_catchalls_resend_confirmation) or state exclusions, so it provides clear context but lacks explicit differentiation from similar resend operations.

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