notification_request_create

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral info (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds critical details: content must be valid HTML with a restricted tag set, subject must avoid special characters, and returns notificationRequestId. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but is sufficient for a creation tool.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) with no redundancy. Key information is front-loaded: purpose first, then requirements and constraints. The important HTML and character rules are highlighted clearly.

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 and no output schema, the description covers creation workflow, prerequisites, post-conditions, and content/subject restrictions. It mentions the returned notificationRequestId. Lacks explanation of optional parameters and no output schema, but overall guides an agent 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains caseFileId, id, language, content, and subject in detail, including formatting rules and allowed values. However, it does not describe optional parameters (type, otpByDefault, sendWaUrlByDefault), leaving gaps. Coverage ~62.5%, adding value but incomplete.

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 it creates a certified notification request and specifies required fields (caseFileId, UUID id, language). It distinguishes from sibling tools like notification_receiver_add by noting that receivers must be added separately.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (case_file_create → caseFileId), post-conditions (use notification_receiver_add before sending), and constraints on language, content format, and subject characters. This helps the agent understand when and how to use the tool correctly.

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