tg_notify

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It transparently explains that no arguments report defaults, and each parameter's effect is described (e.g., mute silences, hours limits duration, sound controls sound, previews control text display, stories mutes stories, exceptions lists diffs). However, it does not mention potential conflicts when both chat and scope are provided, nor any permission or reversibility implications, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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: a short opening paragraph clarifies the overall purpose and relationship to tg_mute, followed by an Args list that maps each parameter to its meaning. While a bit lengthy, every sentence adds value and the format makes it easy to scan. The only minor flaw is the opening paragraph is slightly dense, but it remains efficient for the complexity.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return details), the description covers the essential behaviors: reading vs. changing, per-chat vs. category scope, muting options, content preferences, and exception listing. It misses minor edge cases like parameter conflicts or whether settings persist, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all 8 parameters in accessible language. Each parameter has a clear definition: chat for one chat, scope for categories, mute/hours for silencing, sound/previews/stories for notification details, and exceptions for listing differences. This exceeds what the bare schema provides, making the tool easy to invoke correctly.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Read or change notification settings — for one chat or a whole category.' This uses a specific verb ('read or change') and resource ('notification settings'), with explicit scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tg_mute by saying 'tg_mute is the shortcut for "silence this chat"; this is the tool for everything else,' which makes its role unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it positions tg_notify as the tool for everything beyond simple muting, directly naming tg_mute as the alternative for silencing a single chat. It also explains the default behavior with no arguments, and the 'exceptions' parameter for finding chats with non-default settings, giving clear context for when to invoke each mode.

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