Add notification email (sends a confirmation code)

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond the annotations: it sends a confirmation code immediately, requires confirmation before effectiveness, and returns specific error codes (409, 429, 403). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with these. It adds valuable operational context without contradicting the structured metadata.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action and side effect. It efficiently includes error codes and the confirmation dependency. No filler words or redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured with a note on parameters.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides essential operational details: the confirmation requirement, error codes, and the trigger of sending a code. It does not mention the success response format, but that is often implicit. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema has 2 parameters, with only the 'confirm' parameter having a description (50% coverage). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details; it does not explain the 'email' parameter beyond the schema's format, nor does it clarify the purpose of 'confirm' beyond what is already in the schema. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('Adds a new email address') and the immediate side effect ('sends a confirmation code'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like notification_email_confirm, notification_email_resend, and notification_email_remove by focusing on the add operation and the subsequent confirmation 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?

The description explains the flow: the address becomes effective only after confirmation via notification_email_confirm, implying you should use this tool first and then the confirm tool. It also hints at when to use alternatives via error codes (429 if a code was just sent suggests waiting or using resend, 409 if already confirmed suggests using confirm or list). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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