v2_notifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is low. The description usefully adds that controller and site scopes are separate catalogues, but its framing as 'the real alerting control' sits uneasily against a read-only annotation, and it says nothing about the schema's `restoreDefaults`/`confirm` POST behavior.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences that lead with what the catalogue is. The editorial phrasing ('This is the real alerting control') is a slight dilution, but overall it earns its space.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model (separate controller/site catalogues) but leaves the mutating-adjacent parameters (`confirm`, `restoreDefaults`) unexplained, which matters given the readOnlyHint and a POST-based restore command.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate but largely does not. It conceptually explains the scope split (controller vs site), which adds meaning for the `scope` enum, yet `siteId`, `confirm`, and `restoreDefaults` are never addressed in the description.

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 gives a specific resource (the notification catalogue) and enumerates what it covers: which events are recorded, which raise alerts, which send mail/webhook. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the `alert.enable` field in site settings. It stops short of disambiguating against close siblings like v2_alerts, v2_events, or v2_log_settings.

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?

It implies usage (inspect/control alerting) and gives one negative routing hint – that the site-settings `alert.enable` field is not writable and does not correspond to this page – but it never states plainly when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor prerequisites such as when a siteId is needed.

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