Delimit Notify Routing

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are coarse. The description adds valuable nuance: action='configure' writes via ai.notify.save_routing_config, action='test' sends test notifications, and action='status' is read-only. This meaningfully clarifies what the tool actually does beyond the annotations. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't discuss persistence/irreversibility of configure, but the disclosure is strong.

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 well-structured with clear 'When to use', 'When NOT to use', 'Sibling contrast', and 'Side effects' sections. Every sentence serves a purpose: selection guidance, sibling disambiguation, and behavioral disclosure. The ticket reference 'LED-233' is minor noise but does not undermine clarity.

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 moderate complexity (5 optional parameters, an action switch, an output schema, and sibling overlap), the description covers all critical context: purpose, alternatives, side effects, and read-only vs mutating actions. The output schema exists and the annotations are present, so the description does not need to restate return values or safety hints.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters with defaults and examples. The description adds behavioral context around actions (configure writes, test sends notifications, status is read-only), which connects the schema to behavior, but it does not add significant new meaning about individual parameter formats beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific resource ('impact-based notification routing') and a concrete purpose: inspecting or updating rules that route change alerts to email/webhook/digest by severity. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools delimit_notify and delimit_notify_inbox, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (inspect/update routing rules) and when NOT to use it (reading the inbox or firing a single notification), naming the exact alternative tools. This gives unambiguous selection guidance.

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