create_notifications

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds only the HTTP method/path and adds no behavioral context such as whether existing settings are replaced, auth requirements, or side effects. Idempotency is implied by the annotation but never explained in practical terms.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by the endpoint and args guidance. Each line earns its place, though the native Args block is slightly verbose for a single parameter.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety profile, so the remaining gap is the free-form body, which the /schema pointer addresses. However, the description is vague about what notification settings are, which GET endpoint is 'matching', and how this relates to sibling notification tools – adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the body parameter is an unconstrained object (additionalProperties: true), so the description must compensate. It does so by directing the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover expected fields – genuinely useful guidance for an open-world body – though it names no actual fields itself.

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?

"Create notification settings" states a specific verb plus resource, and gives the POST /api/notifications endpoint. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like list_notifications, patch_notifications, and delete_notifications_by_id by the create verb, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patch_notifications or delete_notifications_by_id. The only usage hint is operational – read the GET or /schema endpoint first – which addresses prerequisites, not tool selection, and gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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