Add Notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the type-dependent config pattern, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, duplicate name behavior, permissions, whether isDefault has immediate effects, or what happens when applyExisting is used. This is a significant gap for a creation/mutation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a clarifying type-dependent config note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details.

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 five parameters, one nested object, and no annotations, so the description needs to compensate for behavioral and edge-case ambiguity. It explains the type-dependent config idea but only provides examples for three types, leaving other types and their required fields unclear. Sufficient for a basic call, but not fully complete for all possible notification types.

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 already 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds concrete examples like webhookURL for slack and ntfyTopic for ntfy, which helps the agent understand the intended shape of the config object beyond the generic schema text. This is valuable but not exhaustive for all supported types.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Creates a new notification channel.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like updateNotification, deleteNotification, and listNotifications. The examples also hint at the concrete scope of what is being created.

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 word 'new' implies this tool is only for creating, not updating or deleting, notification channels. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives like updateNotification for existing channels or says when not to use this tool. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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