Confirm Email Verification

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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the error taxonomy (EMAIL_CODE_INVALID), the post-success state transition (retry the VERIFICATION_REQUIRED failure), and a returned field (phoneVerified) that gates a follow-up step. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 core action and then appends error handling in a compact two-sentence block. It is dense but every clause earns its place; slightly packed for easy scanning but no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what a successful response implies (phoneVerified flag) and how to interpret failures, covering both invocation and follow-up needs. Nothing essential for correct use is missing.

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 100% and there is a single required 'code' parameter, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the semantics of the code (source and 3-day freshness window) beyond the schema's 'exactly as written' note, but adds no syntax detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Verify the account's email address') and immediately distinguishes itself from its sibling by naming 'send_email_verification_code' and the acceptable code source. An agent can identify and separate it from the sibling without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (after the verification email, or any email from the last 3 days) and routes error/edge cases: VERIFICATION_REQUIRED means retry the failed call, phoneVerified:false means use send_phone_verification_code, and EMAIL_CODE_INVALID means resend or re-check. This is essentially a decision table for the agent.

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