delimit_notify_routing

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the routing outcomes but does not mention that 'configure' is a write operation, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The transparency is insufficient for a safe agent decision.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds key detail about severity routing. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits the available actions (status, configure, test) and the config structure. Given the tool has 5 parameters and 0 required, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the explanatory burden. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic routing context, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as managing notification routing with severity-based routing logic. However, it does not explicitly mention the three actions (status, configure, test) or differentiate from sibling tools like delimit_notify, but the verb 'manage' and resource 'notification routing' provide reasonable clarity.

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 implies usage for configuring routing rules based on severity, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delimit_notify for sending notifications). No 'when not to use' or direct comparison.

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