autobrr_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly tags mutating operations as WRITE and the delete operation as DESTRUCTIVE, which is valuable safety information. However, it doesn't describe side effects for read operations or error/return behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured as a bullet list, each line containing an operation signature and a note where relevant. No wasted words; it front-loads the invocation pattern and then enumerates operations efficiently.

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 multi-operation dispatcher with 7 sub-commands, the description covers all operations, their parameter signatures, and safety flags. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Some gaps remain in detailed argument semantics, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke operations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It lists parameter names and defaults (e.g., body={}, notification_id, token='') and gives one specific explanation (token is a Pushover application token). However, it fails to explain the structure or required fields of the 'body' parameter used by create/update/test, which is a significant omission.

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 identifies this as a tool for autobrr notification operations and lists seven specific sub-operations with descriptive names (create, delete, get, list, test, update). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other autobrr resources.

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 clear instructions on how to invoke the tool ('Pass operation and an arguments dict') and enumerates each operation with its parameter signature. While it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings, the scope is unambiguous. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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