update_victorops_notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Update a VictorOps notification integration', implying mutation, but does not state whether the update is partial or full, destructive side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or response behavior. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, but it is under-specified. Every word is functional, but critical information is missing, making it more abbreviated than effectively concise. It fails to earn its place by not providing sufficient detail.

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?

Given the tool has 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is vastly incomplete. It does not explain the effect of the update, how existing fields are affected, failure modes, or any preconditions. For a mutating operation, this level of incompleteness is dangerous for an AI agent.

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% and all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra context is provided for parameter usage or relationships.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a VictorOps notification integration', which is a verb+resource pair. The sibling list includes a create_victorops_notification tool, so the distinction between create and update is implicit. However, it does not specify what aspects can be updated or any scope, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_victorops_notification or other update_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having an existing integration ID, or context for selecting this over another notification type.

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