create_settings_notifications_gotify

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the HTTP method and endpoint and the need to pre-fetch the schema, but it does not describe authentication requirements, whether settings are overwritten wholesale, or side effects. No contradiction with 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 short and front-loaded, with the action and endpoint in the first line and a single useful instruction about the body. 'Args:' repeats schema info but is not harmful.

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 single-parameter settings update with an output schema and annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. The gap is selection guidance: it never acknowledges the sibling _test endpoint or clarifies the create/update naming mismatch, which an agent may need to choose correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the body is an unconstrained additionalProperties object. The description compensates slightly by directing the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint for expected fields, but it does not explain the body's structure or any defaults/required nested fields.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update Gotify notification settings') and gives the exact HTTP endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_settings_notifications_gotify or create_settings_notifications_gotify_test, and the tool name says 'create' while the description says 'update.'

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 instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before supplying the body, which is a useful precondition. It does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., the _test endpoint) or when not to use it.

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