Update Notification

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only restates the action ('updates') without disclosing whether fields are merged or replaced, whether applyExisting has side effects, or any permissions required. It does not mention that the operation could affect existing monitors, which is a meaningful behavioral trait.

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 short sentences with zero filler: one defines the action, the other provides a practical next step. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

While the schema and output schema cover parameter and return details, the description leaves out essential behavioral context for a mutation tool with side-effect-capable parameters (applyExisting) and no annotations. The agent cannot tell if this is a partial update or full replacement, making the description inadequate for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers all six parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pointing to listNotifications specifically for obtaining the notificationID, which is a helpful cross-reference for parameter population.

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 uses a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('existing notification channel'), and its use of the word 'existing' clearly separates it from addNotification and deleteNotification. It also references listNotifications to locate the ID, which reinforces the update scope.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite: use listNotifications to find the notification ID. This is useful guidance, though it does not explicitly name addNotification or deleteNotification as alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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