proxmox_notification

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions elevated requirements for some actions but does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or what happens when actions are performed (e.g., immediate changes, testing behavior). Missing details on conditional parameters (e.g., SMTP fields) and error scenarios.

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 very short and structured with a pipe separator, making it efficient. It front-loads the action categories. However, it could be more readable or include a brief note on action-specific 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 15 parameters with many conditionally required (based on target_type), the description does not explain return values for list/get, or that test sends a test notification. It also lacks context about the tool's role in Proxmox notification management.

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 coverage is 100% and provides descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.

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 tool manages notification targets and distinguishes between query actions (list, get) and management actions (create, delete, test). It uses specific verbs and the resource name is 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 description gives explicit guidance on when to use each action by separating query from management, and it mentions that management actions require elevated privileges. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives among sibling tools, which is acceptable given no direct siblings.

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