notification_request_create

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, detailing requirements (UUID, language en_GB/es_ES), return value (notificationRequestId), and critical constraints: HTML content formatting with allowed tags, and ASCII-only for subject. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Every sentence adds value, from the core action to the detailed HTML rules. It is front-loaded with the purpose and prerequisites, and uses clear imperative statements. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the creation workflow, prerequisites, and critical formatting rules. It could mention the optional parameters (type, otpByDefault, sendWaUrlByDefault) but overall is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of key parameters (caseFileId, id, language, content) and their constraints. It does not cover type, otpByDefault, or sendWaUrlByDefault, but the essential ones are well-described.

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 explicitly states 'Creates a certified notification request,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like notification_request_send, notification_receiver_add, and notification_request_status, which handle different aspects.

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 provides clear usage context: it requires a caseFileId from case_file_create, and mandates adding at least one receiver before sending. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the ordering is implicit.

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