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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the scoping fact that only a single element is affected, but it does not disclose versioning/state effects, whether existing fields are merged or replaced, or what response is expected. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core action and resource are immediately visible.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, so more context about result/error behavior would be helpful. However, the input schema is fully documented and annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile, making this a minimum-viable definition.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, though 'single element' and 'V2 template' echo element_id and notification_id respectively.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('a single element within a V2 notification template'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like put_notification_content and put_notification_locale. The phrase 'single element' and 'V2' make the target unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related notification update tools, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. An agent must infer its applicability from the tool name and the brief description.

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