request_magic_link

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses rate limits and auto-creation behavior, but lacks details on authentication requirements (e.g., service key needed for invite intent), side effects on existing users, or what happens if rate limit is exceeded. Some behavioral aspects are partially covered by the input schema enum descriptions.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and immediately followed by key behavioral notes. Every word contributes value without redundancy.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main behaviors and constraints. It lacks details on authentication for certain intents and response format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand core functionality and usage boundaries.

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, so parameters are well-documented already. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score.

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 (send a passwordless login email) and the resource (magic link to a project user), with the side effect of auto-creating the user on first verification. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_email and verify_magic_link.

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 provides explicit usage context by mentioning rate limits (5/hr per email and per project tier). While it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, the rate limiting gives clear guidance on constraints.

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