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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: batching in groups of 10, default draft state, immediate vs scheduled publishing, and rejection of timezone-bearing datetimes. It still does not disclose permission requirements or email side effects, but those are secondary given the annotation coverage.

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 front-loads batch size and event scope, then covers defaults, publishing modes, conflict rules, and timezone handling in five tight sentences. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 nested notifications array, 10-item limit, required fields, and existing output schema, the description covers the critical calling behavior: batching, default drafts, immediate vs scheduled publishing, the publish/scheduled_at conflict, and timezone rejection. Field-level warnings such as required text and access_level are handled by the schema, so the description is complete enough for correct use.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the nested fields including publish, scheduled_at, access_level, and text are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the publish/scheduled_at conflict and timezone rule, but adds little syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Create notifications') and scope ('for the provided event'), and clarifies draft vs publish vs scheduled behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as publish_draft_notification, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance for the three modes: default draft, publish=true for immediate send, and scheduled_at for later delivery, plus the rule that publish and scheduled_at cannot be combined. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like publish_draft_notification or update_notification_schedule, so sibling alternatives are absent.

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