request_magic_link

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auto-creation on first verification and rate limits (5/hr per email, per tier), which are important behavioral traits beyond what the schema shows.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 tool with 6 parameters (including enums) and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and important side effects but lacks details on return value, error conditions, or specific behaviors per intent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to individual parameters like intent or delivery beyond the schema descriptions. Rate limits are mentioned but not tied to parameters.

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 it sends a passwordless login email (magic link) to a project user and mentions auto-creation on first verification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_magic_link or create_auth_user.

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 usage for sending magic links and notes auto-creation, but does not explicitly guide when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., for explicit user creation vs. sign-in). With many sibling auth tools, more explicit guidance would be helpful.

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