veto_notify_ide

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

The description indicates the tool sends notifications/instructions (a write-like side effect), but the annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, a direct contradiction. This inconsistency severely undermines transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 lack of output schema, the description does not mention return values or error handling. It is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose but misses details on what the agent should expect after invocation.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions, providing adequate but not enhanced semantics.

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 sends notifications/instructions to the IDE, lists specific use cases (open files, alerts, UI actions), and distinguishes it from numerous sibling tools that serve different purposes.

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 explicitly mentions usefulness in bidirectional MCP setups like JetBrains and Zed, but does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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