request_magic_link

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: auto-creation of user on first verification and rate limits (5/hr per email, per project by tier). This provides useful context beyond the input schema, though it omits authentication requirements and intent parameter effects.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose, side effect, and limitations. The main action is front-loaded followed by essential behavioral details. No wasted words.

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?

Given the five parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is partially complete. It covers the primary action, auto-creation, and rate limits, but does not explain the intent parameter's role or required authentication, leaving some gaps.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the action without elaborating on parameter constraints or interactions.

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 primary action: sending a passwordless login email (magic link) to a project user. It also highlights auto-creation of user on first verification, distinguishing it from verification tools like verify_magic_link and generic send_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?

The description implies when to use (sending magic link for login) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like invite_auth_user or send_email. It mentions auto-creation, which hints at use for new users, but lacks clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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