pitchmachine_create_receiver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the creation side effect, mandatory field requirements for each mode, and the return value (receiver_id). It does not discuss permissions or reversibility, but for a create operation the scope is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second delivers mode-specific constraints and the return value. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary action, and highly efficient for an agent parsing it.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key decision rules and the tool's role in the workflow. It does not explain every parameter, but it covers the core logic (mode requirements and next step). The lack of output schema is mitigated by explicitly naming the returned value.

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 58%, meaning several parameters lack descriptions. The description adds critical meaning by specifying which parameters are mandatory for each audience_mode and that the output receiver_id feeds into another tool. This goes beyond what the schema states, particularly the conditional requirements, though some undocumented parameters remain.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a new receiver (a prospect or contact)') in Pitch Machine. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pitchmachine_generate_pitch and pitchmachine_list_pitches by focusing on the creation step, and its output is explicitly tied to the generate step.

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?

Provides explicit mode-specific requirements (b2b requires company_name + contact_email, b2c requires receiver_email), which tells the agent what inputs are needed. It also states that the returned receiver_id is used as input to pitchmachine_generate_pitch, offering a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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