Add notification

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false confirming a write, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the mode distinction but little else about behavior — no side effects, no mention of what happens when a relative notification is set on a task without a due date, and no duplicate/replay semantics beyond what the idempotencyKey schema text already provides.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the mode distinction appended via em-dash. Every word earns its place; zero filler or redundancy.

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 schema (100% coverage, detailed semantics) and output schema carry substantial load, so the short description suffices for the core operation and timing modes. Minor gaps: it does not note that a task must be identified via taskId or taskName, and does not point to sibling lifecycle tools (list_notifications, remove_notification).

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% with rich parameter descriptions (date interpretation rules, enum semantics, idempotency replay behavior, due-date requirement for minutesBefore). Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies; the description only restates the absolute/relative distinction already encoded in the type enum, adding no parameter-level meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('notification (reminder) to a task'), plus the two timing modes (absolute date or relative to due date). The verb 'add' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools list_notifications and remove_notification, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied — use this when attaching a reminder to a task, choosing between absolute and relative timing. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not route to alternatives such as list_notifications or remove_notification for managing existing notifications.

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