update_notification_by_id

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

The annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness, so the description's job is lighter. The description adds the HTTP method and body/query parameter locations but no behavioral context such as validation failure behavior, permissions, or partial-update semantics. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 very short, with the operation front-loaded and each parameter on its own line. Every sentence provides useful information, and the body-schema instruction is valuable despite its brevity.

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 three-parameter update tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: endpoint, id, body preparation, and force_save location. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though a sentence explaining force_save's intent would be stronger.

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 documentation coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies id as a path parameter, body as the request payload, and force_save as a query parameter, and instructs the agent to inspect the GET/schema endpoint for body fields. The force_save parameter's exact effect is not explained, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the operation and resource: "Update Notification" and the PUT endpoint, making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling update_* tools, though the resource name prevents confusion. This is clear but not differentiated beyond the resource.

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 provides concrete guidance for using the tool: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before constructing the body. It implies the standard update workflow but does not state when to choose this over alternatives like create_notification or list_notification_schema. No explicit exclusions or when-not conditions are given.

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