gateway_notification_publish

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

Annotations are minimal (only a title), so the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It mentions 'durable' which implies persistence, and the write permission, but does not explain idempotency, whether notifications are overwritten, or any other operational impact. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the primary action and a key requirement in two sentences. It is not verbose, but it is too sparse for the tool's complexity, so it does not earn a 5.

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 11 parameters (3 required), no schema descriptions, and a missing output schema explanation, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call without additional context on required fields like event_type, title, and recipients_json, or on optional metadata and expiry semantics.

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 0% coverage, and the description does not mention any parameters, their formats, or relationships (e.g., how recipients_json is structured, what event_type values are valid). With no compensation from the description, parameter semantics are severely under-specified.

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 action 'publish' and the resource 'durable employee notification,' which is specific and distinguishes it from read/list/ack tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling notification tools, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 like gateway_notification_get or gateway_notification_ack. It only mentions a permission requirement, which is not enough to help an agent choose the right tool.

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