pve_notification_test

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it labels itself as MUTATION, explains the dry-run plan, details what happens on confirm=True (real send with specific return), and notes no config changes. This adds significant value beyond any annotations (which were not provided).

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, front-loading key information (MUTATION: send a test notification) and using two sentences to cover behavior, dry-run, confirm, and side effects without extraneous 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 the tool's complexity (mutation with dry-run vs real sending), the description is complete. It explains both modes, the expected return values, and clarifies no config changes. An output schema exists, so return values are sufficiently described.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context for all parameters: it tells that 'name' should be an existing endpoint/matcher name and references the list tool, explains 'confirm' behavior, and clarifies that 'proximo_target' relates to multi-target config. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 a test notification to a PVE notification target, with a specific verb ('send a test notification') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_notification_endpoint_list by referencing it for obtaining endpoint 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 explains the dry-run default behavior and that confirm=True sends a real notification, providing clear context on usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools, but the reference to pve_notification_endpoint_list provides some guidance.

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