safe_mind_verify_email

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral detail: no auth needed, a confirmation message is returned, and a wrong/expired code errors out without disclosing whether the account exists (anti-enumeration). It stops short of covering retry limits, code reuse/idempotency, or how long the code stays valid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its input, followed by the auth note and the next-step handoff. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct fact.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description still covers the return value (a confirmation message), the auth posture, the failure mode, and the follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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% and both property descriptions already state that 'code' is the 6-digit verification code and 'email' is the address used in safe_mind_register. The prose merely restates that linkage, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Specific verb (confirm) plus resource (a newly registered account) plus the mechanism (the 6-digit code emailed by safe_mind_register). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings because it anchors itself to the register step in the account-creation sequence.

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?

Explicit sequencing: use this after safe_mind_register produced the verification email, and call safe_mind_get_api_key afterwards. It also tells the agent no API key is required for this specific call, so it won't stall on missing credentials.

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