create_settings_notifications_pushover

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Update' which is consistent with a write operation. It does not disclose additional behavior such as partial updates, validation errors, or effects on existing settings. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise: a one-sentence purpose, the endpoint, and one clear argument with usage hint. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Including the endpoint is slightly redundant with the tool name but still harmless. No unnecessary fluff.

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 there is an output schema (not shown but indicated) and this is a settings update with a free-form body, the description provides the essential workflow: read the schema first, then send the body. It omits authentication and error details, but these are likely standard across the API. The guidance to read the matching GET/schema makes it complete enough for safe invocation.

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 only one parameter 'body' (a free-form object) with 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by instructing to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' to discover expected fields. Without this, the agent would have no way to construct a valid payload. This direct pointer to external schema documentation adds significant value beyond the schema itself.

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 'Update Pushover notification settings.' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_settings_notifications_discord by naming the service explicitly. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'Pushover settings' entails beyond the name, 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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.' This is critical guidance for using the free-form body parameter. It implies when to use this tool (to configure Pushover) by virtue of the name, but doesn't discuss alternatives or exclusions, so not a 5.

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