create_notification_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: authentication requirement, error behavior for invalid bindings, and matching logic (AND with wildcard for omitted fields, empty arrays match nothing). Additional details like idempotency or side effects are missing but not critical.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and matching logic, the second adds essential behavioral notes. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers matching semantics, auth requirement, and error behavior. For a creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, it provides sufficient context. Lacks mention of response format or idempotency, but these are minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the AND logic for matching, the wildcard behavior for omitted fields, and that empty arrays match nothing. This goes beyond the schema's per-field 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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'Telegram routing rule', specifying that it matches events based on optional criteria and routes to one Telegram binding. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_notification_rule and list_notification_rules.

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 mentions the requirement of 'operator_passkey assurance' and notes that an invalid binding returns a 404, but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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