update_per_record_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While '更新します' (updates) implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits - no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing settings. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient Japanese sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It could potentially be more front-loaded with critical information, but it's appropriately concise for what it does convey.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar notification update tools. The description should provide more context about the operation's scope and behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('更新します' - updates) and the resource ('kintoneアプリのレコード単位の通知設定' - per-record notification settings for Kintone apps). It's specific about what gets updated, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_notifications' or 'update_reminder_notifications'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_notifications' and 'update_reminder_notifications' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this per-record notification update from other notification-related updates.

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