confirm_email_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a confirmation but doesn't reveal critical traits: whether this is a write operation (likely yes), what gets modified (e.g., user email), authentication requirements beyond the password parameter, error conditions, or side effects. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and required input, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving ideal brevity for such a simple statement.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with security implications), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., email updated, confirmation sent), error responses, or dependencies on other tools. For a sensitive operation like email change confirmation, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (token, password, collection). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a token is needed. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like token format or password requirements.

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 ('confirm email change') and the required input ('with token'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'request_email_change' by focusing on confirmation rather than initiation. However, it doesn't specify what resource is being modified (e.g., user account), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that 'request_email_change' must be called first), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'confirm_verification' or 'confirm_password_reset'. This leaves the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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