Gửi lại mã xác minh email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful rate limit: five requests per address per hour. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether sending a new code invalidates the previous one, what errors occur on limit exceedance, or whether an actual email is sent.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key rate-limit constraint. The bilingual duplication is mildly redundant but compact and not wasteful.

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-code operation, the description covers the core action and an important limitation. It is still incomplete because it does not specify when to use this over sibling tools, what a successful response looks like, or the behavior when the configuration or address is invalid.

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 only 50%; config_id has a description while email relies on its format and pattern. The description adds some context by linking the email to an address within the configuration, but it does not explain the source or format expectations beyond what the schema already provides.

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: resend a verification email code to an address tied to a configuration. This is a specific verb plus resource and is understandable in both Vietnamese and English. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like monapay_verify_email or monapay_test_email.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a verification code expired or was not received. It also does not mention prerequisites like needing an existing email configuration or the email belonging to that configuration.

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