add_email_to_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits: this is a write operation and the added address remains unverified until the user confirms. However, it omits permission requirements, uniqueness/conflict behavior, and reversibility, leaving meaningful gaps for a 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its write nature, followed by practical retrieval guidance and a behavioral note. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a low-complexity write tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, mutation nature, parameter sourcing, and verification behavior. Minor gaps remain around permissions and duplicate-email handling.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining how to source user_id and by clarifying the verification lifecycle that send_verification influences, going beyond the schema's terse labels.

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 and resource: 'Add a secondary email address to a Greenhouse user.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_email_note_to_candidate, which targets a different resource. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent how to obtain the required user_id ('To find user_id: list_users → match by name or email'), which is actionable prerequisite guidance. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_user, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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