create-recipient

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action 'create' without mentioning side effects, idempotency, validation, or what happens on duplicate values. The lack of any return value description or error scenarios further reduces transparency.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple create operation.

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 simple 4-parameter create tool, the description is adequate: it states the purpose and the schema covers inputs. However, there are gaps such as lack of output/return information and no mention of uniqueness constraints or how the recipient will be used. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text (type, value, name, selected), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema descriptions are sufficient for an agent to understand the expected inputs.

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) and resource (alert recipient), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-recipients and delete-recipient. It is concise and specific, though it lacks additional context about what an alert recipient is or how it relates to the broader alerting system.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and context. This is a minimal but acceptable level of guidance for a simple CRUD operation.

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