_mcp_send_status_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fallback to dry-run, but omits details on side effects (e.g., whether state is modified), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. It adds basic behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the core action and delivery methods. It contains no redundant information, but could be slightly longer to include parameter guidance without losing efficiency.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to document parameter semantics, which is critical given the lack of schema descriptions. The tool has four parameters (three required), and missing parameter guidance makes it incomplete 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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the four parameters (body, subject, recipient, project_id). The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 renders and delivers a status update via SMTP or Slack, with a dry-run fallback. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other operations like audit, generation, or training.

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 implies usage for sending status updates, and mentions dry-run behavior when channels are unconfigured. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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