pmg_action_notification_create

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation (LOW), dry-run behavior, config requirement, and API path. However, it does not describe the response format, success/failure behavior, or idempotency. The existence of an output schema partially compensates but the description could be richer.

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 very concise, using a few lines to pack mutation type, default behavior, config requirement, API path, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds information. Front-loaded with the most critical info ('MUTATION (LOW): create... Dry-run by default'). No wasted 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, 4 required, low schema coverage, and an output schema existing, the description covers the main aspects needed to use the tool. It explains the key parameters and the confirm mechanism. It lacks details on edge cases or authentication specifics beyond config, but overall, it provides sufficient context for 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 description coverage is only 13%, so the description adds significant value. It explains the meaning of name, to, subject, body_text (mapping to API param 'body'), and attach (attach original message). The confirm parameter's role in execution is clarified. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('create'), the resource ('notification action object in the PMG RuleDB'), and the scope (notification-specific). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_action_bcc_create by specifying the notification type. The API path and parameter list reinforce the purpose.

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 mentions the dry-run default and confirm flag to execute, and the required config (PROXIMO_PMG_*). It implicitly guides when to use this tool (for notification actions) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling context makes the usage scope clear enough.

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