Update Notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'updates' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose details like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, partial update semantics (only fields provided are updated), or if there are side effects (e.g., applying to existing monitors if applyExisting is set). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 sentence, short and to the point. It front-loads the core purpose and includes one crucial usage hint (use listNotifications for ID). No fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema explanation, the description is relatively sparse. It covers the basic purpose and the ID retrieval, but does not warn about the effects of applyExisting or config nuances, which are possibly important. Given that there is an output schema (though not shown), some weight is given, but completeness is lacking for a complex tool with nested objects.

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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter information beyond what is in the schema. However, it does note that the notification ID should be obtained from listNotifications, which is a useful hint. Baseline is 3 because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Updates an existing notification channel.' It uses a specific verb (updates) and resource (notification channel), and it differentiates from siblings like addNotification (which would create) and deleteNotification (which would remove). The description also tells the user to use listNotifications to find the ID, which distinguishes it from other update tools.

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 clear context: it updates an existing notification channel and instructs to use listNotifications to find the ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., addNotification for new channels, deleteNotification for removal). The usage guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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