Configure alerts

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description carries real added weight: changes apply immediately, the default is runtime-only, and omitting a field leaves it untouched (a partial-update contract). It does not address failure modes or whether a restart is ever required, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the persistence and partial-update rules. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact with no 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 six-parameter, all-optional mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: immediacy of effect, persistence control, and partial-update behavior. It is slightly thin on interaction effects (e.g., what happens to webhook_events when the URL is cleared) but adequate overall.

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 regardless. The description nonetheless adds a genuine semantic rule not spelled out in the schema — "omit any field to leave it unchanged" — clarifying that all six optional parameters behave as a merge rather than a full overwrite, and it reinforces the save semantics.

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 ("Update alert/notification settings"), clearly distinguishing this from read-oriented siblings like check_notification_setup and test_notification. It stops short of naming an alternative tool by name, so it does not reach the full sibling-differentiation credit.

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 gives one concrete usage rule — "Use save=true to persist changes to the config file" — which tells the agent how to choose behavior. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus configure_verification, check_notification_setup, or test_notification, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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