Gửi lại mã xác minh email

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does disclose a genuinely useful trait: a limit of five requests per address per hour. It omits other behaviors a caller would want, such as whether the previous code is invalidated, what error surfaces when the limit is hit, or whether the config_id must already exist.

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?

Front-loads the action and appends the rate limit in one tight sentence, though the full bilingual duplication repeats identical content for no additional information gain.

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 two-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the rate constraint but leaves the success/failure outcome and config prerequisites unstated.

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 50% (email has only format/pattern, no description; config_id is documented). The description partially compensates by naming both concepts - an address and a config - but adds no format or identity detail beyond what the schema already encodes.

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?

Names a specific verb (resend) and resource (email verification code) with an added scoping detail ('tới một địa chỉ trong cấu hình'). An agent can distinguish it from monapay_verify_email (which validates a code), but the description never explicitly routes against that sibling.

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?

Implies the scenario of re-issuing a code when the user didn't receive one and states the rate ceiling, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many email-config siblings.

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