Resend confirmation code

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only. The description adds error response codes (409, 429) and the cooldown behavior, which are valuable beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention success response or other side effects, but the error disclosures are useful.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and error conditions are stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 resend action with annotations covering safety, the description covers behavior and error states. However, it fails to explain the meaning of the required 'id' parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. Without that, the description is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 50% (only 'confirm' is described). The tool description adds no parameter details; it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to. Since the description is the main source for parameter meaning and it omits 'id', the agent is left guessing. This is a significant gap.

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 ('Resends the confirmation letter') and the target condition ('to an unconfirmed email'), distinguishing it from siblings like notification_email_confirm (which likely confirms) and notification_email_add (which adds). It also includes error codes that clarify the scope.

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 explicitly states when to use (unconfirmed email) and when not to (already confirmed → 409, too often → 429 with cooldown). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the conditions are clear enough for an agent to decide. This is strong guidance but lacks explicit alternative routing.

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