Update form recipients

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the request body is a top-level JSON array, PUT must be used despite an incorrect Python sample, existing entries should be preserved, and the operation may notify recipients or change tenant data. This materially helps an agent understand side effects and correct invocation.

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 dense but each sentence carries useful information: endpoint, body shape, method correction, preservation semantics, reference, and authorization requirements. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and method, though the array/root-key explanation could be tightened.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: exact endpoint, HTTP method, body structure, preservation behavior, required confirmation, operator opt-in, potential side effects, and a reference for full details. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that body fields describe array entries rather than root object keys and by naming 'recipients' as the body field. It also clarifies the confirm parameter's requirement. It does not enumerate all recipient subfields, but the reference covers that.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update form recipients') and immediately identifies the exact endpoint (PUT /api/xm/1/forms/{formId}/recipients). It also clarifies the top-level array structure, which distinguishes this operation from the nested recipient update sibling.

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 gives clear context: this is the top-level form recipients update, requires confirm:true and operator write opt-in, and should preserve existing entries. It does not explicitly name the nested alternative or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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