qui_update_notification_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses that it is a PUT request, which implies mutation, but it does not explain side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. It lacks any context about what changes occur to the notification target or whether existing notifications are affected. This is minimal transparency.

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, focused sentence that conveys the endpoint and the three parameter-passing conventions. It is front-loaded with the resource and method, with no wasted words. It earns its place by providing the exact HTTP endpoint and argument structure.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and a generic schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a notification target is, what fields are updatable, whether other fields are required, or what the response contains. An agent would have to rely on external API knowledge to invoke this correctly. The terse endpoint reference is not sufficient context for safe and correct usage.

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 is generic (a single 'arguments' object with no property descriptions), so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds a structural convention: path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. However, it does not name the specific path variable (e.g., id) or the valid fields for updating a notification target. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema detail.

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 the tool as a call to the PUT /notifications/targets/{id} endpoint, which unambiguously indicates an update operation on a notification target. This is further reinforced by the tool name itself. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and test by specifying the HTTP method and resource path.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains how to invoke the endpoint (path variables, query params, body) but does not state that this is for updating an existing notification target, nor does it mention exclusion scenarios or fallback tools. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the existence of related CRUD siblings.

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