create_notification_rule

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

With no annotations, the description compensates by detailing critical behavioral aspects: empty arrays match nothing, omitted fields act as wildcards, and invalid binding IDs return 404. It could mention the return value or side effects, but the provided details are sufficient.

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 core action, and a second sentence adding critical behavioral notes. No unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the input behavior well, including edge cases and prerequisites. It does not specify the return value (e.g., created rule ID), but the focus is on input, which is adequately explained.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the AND logic for match fields, clarifies wildcard behavior for omitted fields, and notes that empty arrays are not wildcards. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Create a Telegram routing rule' with specific matching and routing logic. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_notification_rules and delete_notification_rule by detailing the creation aspect.

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 mentions the requirement 'Requires operator_passkey assurance' and explains the 404 behavior for invalid bindings, providing context for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like test_notification.

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