create_recipient

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('changes the real production account'), the gating mechanism, and conditional parameter requirements. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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 moderately sized and uses a warning emoji, a POST endpoint hint, and clear parameter groupings. It is well-structured but could be slightly more concise by removing the redundant 'POST /scanboxes/...' line.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and safety constraints. It is complete for a creation tool with conditional parameters, though it omits the return value or confirmation response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'type' (Person/Company) and the conditional requirements for firstname, lastname, and name. However, it does not describe 'scanbox_id' or 'confirm' beyond the warning, leaving some parameters underspecified.

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 ('Create a recipient') and the target resource ('on a scanbox'), providing a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_recipients' by implying creation rather than listing.

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 includes a prominent warning about affecting production and the double-gating requirement (environment variable and confirm=true). It also explains parameter dependencies (type determines required fields). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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