request_email_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what the tool does beyond 'request'—such as whether it sends a notification, requires confirmation, affects user state, or has side effects like rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation-related tool.

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 with just two words, avoiding unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than efficiency. Every word earns its place, but the content is minimal.

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 complexity of an email change request (likely involving user authentication, confirmation workflows, and side effects), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for safe and effective use, especially compared to detailed sibling tools like 'confirm_email_change'.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('newEmail' and 'collection'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as email format requirements or collection implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 'Request email change' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the action ('request') and resource ('email change') but lacks specificity about what the request entails or who initiates it. Compared to sibling tools like 'confirm_email_change', it doesn't distinguish its role in the workflow.

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., authentication), related tools like 'confirm_email_change', or scenarios where it's appropriate. Without this, an agent might misuse it or overlook necessary follow-up steps.

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