assistantmail_remove_recipient

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

The description clearly discloses the core behavioral effect: a recipient is removed from the allowed recipient list. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention side effects, whether the action is reversible, or any authorization needs.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. It is appropriately terse, though it could safely add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this is too thin. An agent can infer the basic operation, but it lacks guidance on the optional apiKey, the consequences of removal, and how this relates to the broader recipient-management workflow.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only implies that the removed recipient corresponds to the email field, and it says nothing about the optional apiKey or when that parameter is needed.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Removes', and a precise resource: 'a recipient from the allowed recipient list.' This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like add_recipient and list_recipients, making the tool's function immediately clear.

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 intended use is implied by the action itself: use this tool when a recipient should no longer be on the allowed list. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as add_recipient for restoring access.

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