pbs_notification_target_test

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

With no annotations, the description conveys mutation, synchronous behavior, return formats for dry-run and real send, and states that no config changes are made. It could be improved by mentioning potential error conditions or rate limits, but it is largely transparent about core behavior.

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 extremely concise (two sentences), front-loads the verb and mutation nature, and includes all essential information without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return types for both dry-run and real send, specifies prerequisites, and clarifies the target name source. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context: 'name' is an existing endpoint or matcher name (referencing pbs_notification_targets_list), 'confirm' defaults to false and controls dry-run vs real send. The proximo_target parameter is already clear in the schema, but the description provides useful cross-reference for name.

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 is a mutation tool for sending real test notifications to a PBS notification target, with a dry-run mode by default. It distinguishes between dry-run and confirm actions and specifies synchronous return. It also differentiates from listing tools by mentioning pbs_notification_targets_list for target names.

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 explicitly states dry-run default and real send with confirm=True. It mentions prerequisites (PROXIMO_PBS_* config) and that no config changes are made. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, it implicitly contrasts with listing tools and provides clear context for its use case.

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