update_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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals that this is a whole-object replacement operation ('send the whole object back') and that it applies only to an existing resource, preventing accidental creation. It does not mention permissions or response details, but the critical mutation semantics are transparent.

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 with zero wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by a compact and actionable workflow instruction.

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 two-parameter update with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the prerequisite fetch and the full-object requirement, though it does not describe the response body or error conditions. The operation is straightforward enough that these omissions are not critical.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning by instructing the agent to source the config object from get_notification and modify it, clarifying how to construct the required full object beyond the schema's 'Full notification connection resource object including id'.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('notification connection'), and qualifies it as 'existing', which clearly distinguishes it from create_notification. There is no ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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 provides an explicit workflow: fetch the connection with get_notification first, modify it, and send the whole object back. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool effectively, though it does not explicitly name create_notification or delete_notification as alternatives for other lifecycle operations.

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