update_notification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only explicitly valued fields are sent in PUT body, that unknown alert_type values warn but don't reject, that email defaults to user's primary email, and that account_id can auto-resolve. This is thorough behavior documentation.

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 well-structured: a brief opening, behavioral note about None, context paragraph, and a numbered Args list. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, it is somewhat lengthy due to the number of parameters, but every sentence adds value.

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 10 parameters, complex behavior (PUT body only explicit, auto-resolve, defaults), and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It even states the return format (JSON string) despite the existence of an output schema. Covers all necessary aspects for correct 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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed meaning for each parameter: notification_id, name, alert_type (with list of options), send_email, send_desktop, etc. It adds crucial context like plan-specificity and validation of email as RFC-822-ish, which goes beyond the raw 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 it updates a notification rule and lists specific capabilities (rewire targets, change triggering events, silence without deleting). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_notification and delete_notification by focusing on modification.

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 usage pattern ('Pass None to leave a field unchanged') and provides context on when to use (e.g., 'silence a noisy rule without deleting it'). It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough for most scenarios.

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