add_stop_list_email

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the raw action. It does not mention idempotency, consequences for future email delivery, or any side effects, failing to provide value beyond the structured annotations.

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, concise sentence without any redundant words. It front-loads the essential information and wastes no space.

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 destructive write operation, the description is minimal and lacks information about consequences, return values, or authorization requirements. However, the simple action, complete parameter schema, and annotations partially compensate for the missing details.

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 input schema fully describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra semantic meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'добавить' (add) and a clear resource 'email в стоп-лист' (email to stop list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_stop_list_email and search_stop_list. The action is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 states the action but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_stop_list_email or search_stop_list. The usage is implied by the name and sibling context, but there are no stated exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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