b24_notify_send

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says that a notification is sent; it does not mention the need for a write-capable webhook, read-only implications, tag replacement behavior, or the confirm-type interaction, all of which are important for correct invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though it achieves brevity at the expense of behavioral context.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description is too thin. It omits webhook requirements, read-only caveats, return behavior, and other details an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 83%, so the parameter descriptions already document most fields. The main description adds little parameter-level meaning, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a clear action verb ('Envía') and identifies the resource ('una notificación personal a un usuario dentro de Bitrix24'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like b24_chat_send or b24_feed_post, so it falls short of a 5.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling names such as b24_chat_send suggest possible overlap, but the description never states conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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