create_settings_notifications_lunasea

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only 'Update' and the endpoint, which is consistent with idempotency but adds no further behavioral context such as whether this is a full replacement or partial update, or what happens on success. It does not disclose side effects beyond 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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint. The additional note about reading the schema is useful and directly placed. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit sections, but it is efficient.

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?

The description points to the schema for body fields, which is a good start. However, it does not explain the update semantics (e.g., full vs partial update), or what the response looks like. Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but the lack of guidance on how the body should be constructed (beyond referencing schema) leaves some gaps. The name/verb mismatch adds to incompleteness.

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?

There is one parameter 'body' with schema coverage 0%, so the description must compensate. It instructs to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to see expected fields, which is helpful and directs the agent to the right source. However, it does not provide any actual field names or structure, so the agent still needs to fetch the schema to proceed.

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 action ('Update LunaSea notification settings') and specifies the resource (LunaSea notifications). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling notification tools, but the resource is clear. The verb 'Update' mismatches the tool name 'create', which causes some ambiguity, but the description itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other notification settings tools (e.g., Discord, Email). It only suggests reading the matching GET or /schema endpoint, which is about how to call it, not when to choose it. With many siblings, explicit selection criteria are missing.

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