notification_receiver_add

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false, and the description confirms it is a non-destructive mutation. It adds behavioral detail: the `id` can be a UUID v4 or custom string, and it returns a receiverId to be saved for notification_certificate_get, which is helpful beyond 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 three sentences: action, prerequisites, and additional info on id and return value. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 10 parameters (6 required), no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains prerequisites and workflow hints (save receiverId for next tool), but does not cover most parameters or side effects. It provides a basic skeleton but lacks full context for a complex tool.

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% (10 parameters, none described). The description only explains the `id` parameter (UUID or custom string) and mentions prerequisites, but does not clarify other required parameters like firstName, lastName, email, or optional ones like phoneNumber. With such low coverage, the description should provide more parameter guidance.

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 'Adds a recipient to a notification request,' identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like notification_request_create and notification_document_add by focusing on adding a recipient, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides explicit prerequisites: 'Requires: notification_request_create → notificationRequestId, case_file_create → caseFileId.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after creating a notification request and case file), but does not give when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

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