notification_receiver_add

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating there is no separate receiverId and that receivers are tracked via returned notificationIds. However, it lists provider values like SMTP and NOTICEMAN_AND_WHATSAPP that do not match the schema's actual provider const values (e.g., 'Notification_AddReceiverEmailNotificationRequestModel'), which could mislead an agent. This is not a contradiction with annotations but an internal inconsistency.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and high-value, explaining the core purpose and workflow. However, the long pipe-delimited provider list at the end is verbose and not directly aligned with the schema's provider values, making the description longer and less focused than necessary.

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?

Although the description covers workflow and the absence of receiverId, the provider value mismatch is a significant gap. An agent could attempt to use 'SMTP' as the provider and fail because the schema requires a model string. The description does not reconcile the human-readable provider names with the schema's const values, so the overall context is insufficient for reliable 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?

The schema already describes requestId and provides detailed oneOf structures for receivers, but the description's provider guidance is confusing: it mentions 'provider (SMTP/SMS/NOTICEMAN/WFB)' while the schema expects const model names. This actively undermines parameter understanding. With 50% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate and may lead agents to set invalid provider values.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Adds one or more receivers to a draft notification request.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining that each receiver becomes a per-channel notification under the shared requestId, making it clearly different from notification_request_create or notification_request_send.

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 explicitly states the workflow position: 'Use once per batch of receivers before calling notification_request_send' and the prerequisite 'Requires: notification_request_create → requestId.' This gives an agent unambiguous guidance on when and how to invoke the tool.

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