veto_notify_ide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: whether the notification is actually rendered is up to the client, and open_file deliberately fails rather than simulating success. That is real disclosure beyond the annotation, though no auth or rate-limit context is given.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical and capability-boundary clause are slightly dense but each carries useful information, so nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, four-parameter notification tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, which actions work, and what happens on the unsupported action. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the level parameter does functionally when the client ignores the message.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the outcome of the action enum values, notably that open_file will error rather than succeed. This helps the agent pick a valid action, exceeding the schema's raw enum listing.

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 states a specific verb and resource: sends a message to the client as an MCP log notification via the show_message or set_status actions. It draws a clear capability boundary (no file opening or UI changes), but it never references or contrasts with any sibling tool, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 implicitly steers the agent toward show_message/set_status and away from open_file by noting that open_file returns an error rather than pretending. However, it never states when to call this tool at all, nor does it name an alternative for the messaging role, so guidance is only implied.

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