bildirim_sonucu

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

Annotations already mark the tool as a non-read-only mutation, but the description adds important domain behavior: it does not send messages or produce proof, definitive failures are requeued with increasing delay, stale/wrong lease keys cannot close the record, and duplicate normal results are safe. The duplicate-safety note is scoped to normal results and does not contradict the global idempotentHint=false, since non-normal outcomes such as failure requeue repeatedly.

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 first sentence is front-loaded with the tool's scope and exclusions, and the remaining lines are dense with status-specific rules. It is appropriately sized, though the status names are somewhat telegraphic and would benefit from clearer formatting.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the most important behavioral rules: outcome handling, requeue semantics, lease-key protection, and duplicate safety. The remaining gaps are return behavior and the semantics of the two ID parameters.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It substantially clarifies the 'sonuc' enum values and the behavior of 'kiralama_anahtari' when stale or wrong, but it leaves 'abonelik_id' and 'bildirim_id' unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it records the actual send result ('Gerçek gönderim sonucunu kaydeder') and explicitly states what it does not do ('mesaj göndermez ve teslim kanıtı üretmez'). It is clear without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'bildirim_kuyrugu'.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use rules for each outcome value: 'gonderildi' only after an external sender returns a positive result, 'basarisiz' requeues with increasing wait, 'belirsiz' is not automatically retried, and 'yeniden_dene' only after confirming the message was not sent. These are concrete conditions and exclusions rather than vague guidance.

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