assistantmail_add_recipient

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

The description discloses a meaningful non-obvious side effect: it may send a consent invitation. However, 'when required' is undefined, and with no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden without covering duplicates, reversibility, or expected outcomes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The consent-invitation clause adds important behavioral information without bloating the 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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is minimal. It leaves unanswered the conditions for consent, whether apiKey is required, duplicate-recipient behavior, and what success or error looks like.

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 description provides no direct meaning for email or apiKey. 'Adds a recipient' weakly implies that email is the recipient address, but apiKey is entirely unexplained, and with 0% schema coverage the description needed to compensate more than it does.

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: adding a recipient, plus the consent-invitation side effect. It is naturally distinguishable from sibling tools like remove_recipient and list_recipients, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_recipient or send_email. It also does not mention prerequisites like apiKey or the consent policy context that determines when the invitation is required.

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