patch_notifications_by_id

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, partial-update semantics, or response behavior; the body-discovery pointer is more about parameter semantics than runtime 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?

The description is short and front-loaded: purpose first, then endpoint, then parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple two-parameter update with an output schema and safety-related annotations available, the description is nearly sufficient. It includes the path template and a clear method for discovering body fields. The main gap is the lack of sibling differentiation and any note about when not to use this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It correctly identifies id as a path parameter and body as the request payload, and it tells the agent to consult GET or /schema to discover expected fields — useful since body is an open object. However, it does not enumerate any concrete fields, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update a notification') and gives the PATCH path, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like patch_notifications or delete_notifications_by_id, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is for updating an existing notification by id and provides a concrete prerequisite: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to learn the expected body fields. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings, nor any exclusions.

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