Confirm email change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It accurately indicates this is a state-changing confirmation action, but it does not disclose side effects such as invalidating the old email, session behavior, or error cases. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. Every element adds value: the action, the resource, and the two required inputs.

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 just two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the purpose of both key parameters. It does not explain return values or failure modes, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that the token comes from the confirmation email and that the password is the user's current password, which reinforces the schema descriptions and clarifies the token's origin.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Confirm a user's email change.' It also explains the mechanism (token from confirmation email and password), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_password_reset or confirm_verification.

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 gives clear context: this tool is used when a user has a token from a confirmation email and needs to complete an email change. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is specific enough to guide correct selection.

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