notify_post_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions routing based on provider/env defaults but does not explain what happens if no provider is set, the effect of the dry_run parameter (default true means no actual send?), or error behavior. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, 15 words) but at the cost of omitting critical details such as parameter semantics, behavior, and routing logic. It is not front-loaded with the most important information for an agent to decide whether to invoke the tool.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. The agent lacks understanding of expected input format, return values, routing logic, and failure modes. The context signals indicate a coverage gap that the description does not address.

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?

The input schema has 8 parameters, but the schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description provides no explanations for any parameter. The required 'incident_id' is not defined, nor are the optional parameters like 'service', 'summary', 'text', etc. This leaves the agent with no semantic guidance.

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 a provider-agnostic notification entrypoint that routes to Slack or Teams. It distinguishes from sibling tools like slack_post_update and teams_post_update by emphasizing the automatic routing based on provider/env defaults, though it doesn't specify what 'post_update' refers to exactly.

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 the tool is used when a provider-agnostic notification is needed, leaving routing decisions to defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the specific Slack or Teams tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

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