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 burden. It only states that it creates a notification channel and that config fields vary; it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting behavior, required permissions, idempotency, or whether existing channels with the same name are rejected). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap, though the output schema may compensate for return semantics.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides necessary elaboration on config dependencies without waste. It's compact and easily scannable, meriting a strong score, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit headings or bullet lists.

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 tool's simplicity, an output schema exists (as indicated by context), so return values are covered elsewhere. The description handles the main purpose and config variability well. However, it lacks prerequisites, usage timing, and any warnings about side effects. For a create operation with no annotations, it's minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 adds value by giving concrete examples for type-specific config (slack webhookURL, ntfy ntfyTopic & ntfyServerUrl, discord discordWebhookUrl), clarifying the abstract `config` object. This exceeds what the schema alone provides, earning a 4.

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 starts with 'Creates a new notification channel', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like updateNotification, deleteNotification, and listNotifications by implying creation. The phrasing is specific and 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., updateNotification for editing). It implies usage context by focusing on creation, but lacks any explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion guidance. The informative note about type-specific fields provides some context, but not strategic usage advice.

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