Request email verification

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses the side effect (sending an email) and an important operational requirement (SMTP configured). It does not detail behaviors like idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if the user is already verified, but the core action is clearly communicated.

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, well-structured sentence that states the action, target, and a critical prerequisite without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the key requirement (SMTP) is included up front.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description is complete enough for selection and invocation: it explains what happens, to whom, and what must be configured. The lack of explicit return-value information is a minor omission given the absence of an output schema, but it does not block correct use.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only reinforces the general context of sending to a user's email in an auth collection.

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 ('send a verification email') and the target ('a user of an auth collection'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the specific 'verification email' resource distinguishes it from related tools like confirm_verification or request_password_reset.

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 clear context by noting this applies to auth collection users and explicitly requires SMTP to be configured, which is a useful precondition. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the prerequisite and target audience give enough situational guidance for most agents.

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