accelo_create_signoff_recipient

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state side effects, permission requirements, whether adding a recipient triggers notifications, or what happens on duplicate recipients — significant gaps for a create/mutation tool.

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?

A short lead sentence followed by a compact Args list; every line maps to a real parameter and it is well front-loaded. Format follows a consistent docstring convention.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the parameter coverage is solid but behavioral context (side effects, required permissions, notification behavior) is absent, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all five parameters including the constrained values for recipient_type ('affiliation' or 'staff'), which the schema does not express as an enum. Only 'fields' is described thinly ('Additional fields to return').

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a recipient to a signoff'), which is clear and actionable. It does not differentiate from siblings such as accelo_update_signoff_recipient or accelo_delete_signoff_recipient, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (update/delete signoff recipient, send_signoff). The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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