delimit_notify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains that notifications can be sent via webhook, Slack, or email, and includes email context rules. However, it does not cover side effects (e.g., whether sending a notification is idempotent), error handling, or authentication requirements. The auto-trigger rule describes AI behavior, not tool behavior, which limits transparency.

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 relatively long and contains redundant or imperative instructions (e.g., 'All tools must chain automatically') that could be integrated into system instructions. While it is structured with headings, it could be more concise without losing critical information. The front-loading is acceptable but not optimal.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics reasonably well. It includes email formatting rules crucial for correct invocation. However, it lacks information about error conditions, response format (though output schema exists), and rate limiting. For a tool with 7 optional parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of each channel, the email subject prefix rules ([ACTION], [INFO], [ALERT]), and that the 'to' parameter overrides the default SMTP recipient. This enriches parameter understanding, justifying a higher score.

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 'Send a notification (Pro)', specifying the action and resource. It also lists the supported channels (webhook, Slack, email) and typical use cases (governance alerts, deployment notifications), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like delimit_notify_inbox, the channel and usage context provide sufficient 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 includes an explicit auto-trigger rule stating when to call the tool ('When the AI identifies something requiring owner action... it MUST call this tool immediately'), along with specific use cases (governance alerts, deployment notifications). It also provides email formatting guidelines. However, it does not contrast with sibling notification tools (e.g., delimit_notify_inbox), so guidance on choosing between them is absent.

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