Manage intake recipients

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful side effects: remove stops future reminders, reinstate clears a bounce flag and may re-plan the schedule, and add creates its own message and bounce state. It also explicitly states failure conditions for non-member addresses and reinstate on non-bounced addresses.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized by action, with each sentence earning its place. It is dense but not bloated, and the failure conditions are placed at the end as a natural close.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the three actions, side effects, scheduling implications, and failure cases. It does not describe the success return value, but that is a minor gap given the detail present for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining the semantics of each action value, noting that name is only used with add, and clarifying how email/intake_id relate to failure conditions. This goes beyond the schema's terse property descriptions.

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 specific verb set — add, remove, or reinstate — and names the resource (a person receiving an intake's invite and reminders). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like define_intake and update_intake by framing it as managing recipients alongside or instead of the primary client.

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 for each action and even references define_intake's also_notify behavior to explain the add case. It does not explicitly list alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', but the action-specific guidance makes the intended use obvious enough.

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