update_recipient

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

The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the description does not need to restate the safety profile. It adds that the mutation targets the recipient's description specifically, but it does not explain whether the existing description is replaced, whether permissions are required, or what side effects occur.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves useful operational details to other dimensions rather than making the sentence itself 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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description identifies the operation adequately. However, it omits usage context and constraints on the description value, leaving the agent with only the schema and annotations to fill those gaps.

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%: recipient_id is documented as a UUID, but the description parameter has no schema-level explanation. The tool description merely says it sets a recipient's description, which identifies the field but does not add constraints, format, length, or empty-value behavior for the description string.

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 states a specific verb, "Set", and a specific resource/field, "a recipient's description", so the agent can tell it updates that field rather than other recipient properties. It is clear but does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as set_recipient_option or update_alias.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as the recipient existing, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for changing an existing recipient's description rather than creating or configuring a recipient.

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