test_destination

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, side-effectful operation, but the description adds crucial context: it sends a test alert immediately by default, and explains the resend_verification mode's behavior (including idempotency on verified destinations and the 400 error for non-email types). It does not contradict annotations. The description carries the behavioral burden well, though it could mention the exact response format, which is absent.

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 efficiently structured: it front-loads the primary purpose, then provides conditional alternatives and error handling. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. It is longer than average but earns its length.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the expected outcome (test alert or resend link) and key error cases (unverified email, 400 for non-email). Given the tool's simplicity and the richness of the annotations and schema, nothing essential is missing 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the conditional semantics of resend_verification (when to use it, that it's idempotent, and that it only applies to email destinations). This is a solid improvement over the bare schema.

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 verb ('send') and resource ('destination'), and explains the purpose: to move a destination from 'created' to 'known to work' by delivering a test alert. It explicitly differentiates from the resend_verification mode, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like create_destination or set_route.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after create_destination to confirm credentials. It also states when NOT to use it (for unverified email destinations) and names the alternative (resend_verification=true). This is a textbook example of usage routing.

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