Delimit Notify

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

Despite the annotations being minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the key side effect: it sends a network message via webhook JSON POST, Slack, or SMTP. It also explains the downstream founder-reply loop, the auto-trigger requirement, and content expectations. This goes well beyond what the annotations or schema alone convey, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 long but well-organized with labeled sections and front-loading of the core action. There is some redundancy, such as repeating the founder-reply loop and channel listing, but the repetition reinforces genuinely important behavioral requirements. The structure makes it easy for an agent to scan and extract key rules.

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's 11 parameters and optional draft-related behaviors, the description covers the critical usage context, exclusions, side effects, and content formatting rules well. The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It falls just short of a 5 because some operational details, such as how draft_kind interacts with the local SQLite registry, are only in the schema rather than the main description, though the schema does document them.

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. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema by specifying email subject and body rules, including [ACTION TYPE] prefixes and the need for self-contained actionable content. However, several parameters like draft_target, draft_payload, and from_account are not elaborated in the prose description, though the schema covers them adequately.

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: 'Send a notification (webhook / Slack / email).' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by stating that delimit_notify_routing configures rules, delimit_notify_inbox reads inbound messages, and this tool sends one outbound notification. This makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions ('requires owner action — outreach reply, deployment decision, approval needed'), an explicit when-not-to-use section with alternative tools (delimit_siem, delimit_notify_routing), and a mandatory auto-trigger rule instructing the agent to call immediately without asking. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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