voidmail_request_recipient

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

Annotations only declare write/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world. The description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it creates a pending request (not an approval), never uses the owner key, and warns that email text is not an approval. That last point is a valuable anti-prompt-injection disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the constraints. The final sentence uses semicolons to pack two security rules efficiently with no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, authorization requirements, and the trust boundary. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'recipient' fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Ask the human mailbox owner to approve one recipient address.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like voidmail_revoke_recipient and voidmail_send_email without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly frames scope with when-not conditions ('it does not send mail or grant anything') and a critical gating rule ('only a request made with the owner key approves a recipient'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool to use instead, so it is strong context rather than explicit routing.

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