create_settings_notifications_gotify_test

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

The annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral detail. It does not state that the tool sends a test notification, whether it validates connectivity, what errors might occur, or if it requires prior configured gotify settings. The only added context is pointing to the GET/schema endpoint for payload fields, but that is parameter-related, not behavioral. With limited annotations, the description carries a burden it fails to meet.

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 minimal and front-loads the purpose ('Test Gotify settings.') followed by the endpoint and a brief arg note. It is well-structured and concise, with no unnecessary sentences. The length is appropriate for a tool whose complexity is low, though it leaves gaps in behavior and usage.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (though not shown) and a single body parameter, the description still fails to clarify the tool's behavior (e.g., does it send a test notification and return a status?), any prerequisites (e.g., gotify must be configured), or the format of the response. The note to read the GET/schema is helpful for parameters but does not cover the overall operation. The description is incomplete for an agent to reliably decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema defines 'body' as an open object (additionalProperties: true) with no property definitions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds value by instructing to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.' This tells an agent where to find the expected structure, compensating for the empty schema. However, it does not describe any specific 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 clearly states the resource ('Gotify settings') and the action ('Test'), distinguishing it from sibling test tools by naming the service. However, it does not explicitly say what 'test' entails (e.g., sending a test notification), relying on the HTTP method and endpoint context. This is clear enough for an agent to infer the purpose.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar test tools for other services (e.g., create_settings_notifications_discord_test) or versus create_settings_notifications_gotify (which likely saves settings). It only states 'Test Gotify settings,' which duplicates the name. No context, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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