update_notification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers strongly: it discloses the None-skip semantics, partial PUT body behavior, plan-specific warning behavior, email override defaults, account_id auto-resolution, and the return type. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema or annotations could convey.

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 with a front-loaded core behavior (None semantics) followed by context and an Args block. It is slightly verbose in places—e.g., some parameter descriptions like 'send_email: Send email notification' merely restate the name—but overall the organization and length are reasonable for a 10-parameter tool.

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?

For a 10-parameter, single-required-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers every param, gives usage examples, explains edge cases (None, plan-specific unknowns, account auto-resolution), and even notes the return format. The output schema exists, so return details need not be fully described, but the description still provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 10 parameters. It does so extensively: alert_type lists common values, email explains the override and validation, account_id notes auto-resolution, and send_* fields are tied to the silencing workflow. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Update a notification rule,' a specific verb+resource statement that immediately establishes the tool's purpose. It further differentiates itself from siblings by contrasting with deletion ('without deleting it') and referencing the shared alert_type set with create_notification, so an agent can distinguish it from create/delete/list variants.

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 when to use the tool: 're wire targets, change triggering events, or silence a noisy rule without deleting it.' It mentions the alternative of deletion, but does not explicitly call out create_notification as the alternative for new rules. Still, the context strongly implies the update-vs-create boundary, making the usage guidance clear but not fully exhaustive.

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