b2_set_bucket_notification_rules

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: confirmation is enforced by policy, webhook URLs are validated for public HTTPS reachability, and echoed URL details, HMAC secrets, and custom-header values are redacted from the response. These behaviors are not derivable from annotations and materially shape agent expectations. The description is consistent with all annotations, so no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second gives the read-first workflow and the patch/append warning, and the third discloses permissions, confirmation, URL validation, and response redaction. Critical information is front-loaded and there is zero filler.

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 destructive write tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: full-replace semantics, the prerequisite read call, permission and confirmation requirements, URL validation, and response redaction behavior. The schema fully documents all three parameters, so no material gap remains.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the semantics of eventNotificationRules as a complete desired set ('submit the full desired rule set; this is not a patch or append API'), which tells the agent that omitting a rule deletes it and that a read-first call is required to assemble the payload. The URL-publicity and redaction notes also echo and reinforce the schema's url and secret parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the complete B2 event-notification webhook rule set for a bucket.' It clearly differentiates from the read sibling b2_get_bucket_notification_rules by emphasizing this is a full replacement, not a patch or append API, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly prescribes the workflow ('Use b2_get_bucket_notification_rules first and submit the full desired rule set') and names the exclusion condition ('this is not a patch or append API'), so the agent knows partial edits are out of scope. It also states the required permission (writeBucketNotifications) and the destructive-confirmation precondition, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool applies.

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