send_workspace_notification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'send a notification to workspace' with no mention of side effects, permission requirements, scope of recipients, or return behavior. This provides essentially no transparency beyond the action itself.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition, effectively front-loading the core action.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and any behavioral explanation, the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand invocation context, such as what happens after sending or what permissions are required. The schema fills some gaps, but the overall context remains incomplete.

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 describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage (e.g., auth as '通知対象の権限レベル', message as '通知メッセージ'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and the schema descriptions are terse but minimally sufficient.

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 'ワークスペースに通知を送信する' clearly states the action (send notification) and the target resource (workspace). It distinguishes from sibling notification tools for organization and group by naming the workspace scope, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools send_organization_notification and send_group_notification. The description only states what it does, leaving the selection context entirely implicit.

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