update_notification

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and idempotentHint=true (safe to retry). The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, which is useful but does not elaborate on side effects, rate limits, or what exactly happens on update. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides marginal added value.

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 of 12 words that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and a key prerequisite without any redundant or unnecessary text. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward update tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies what is being updated and a necessary condition. However, it does not describe the return format, whether the update takes immediate effect, or how errors are handled. Given the lack of output schema, more completeness would be beneficial but not critical for this simple operation.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (sys_id and fields are well-documented). The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond the schema. Therefore, the description contributes no extra meaning for the parameters, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'email notification', and includes a prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_notification (create) and get_notification (read), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which provides clear context for when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., using create_notification for new notifications). Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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