changedetection_replace_notifications

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the key consequence—every existing URL is overwritten, and an empty array wipes them all—plus the dry-run escape hatch. It doesn't mention permission requirements or the response shape, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the destructive 'replace every' scope is front-loaded before the endpoint and the dry-run note.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it safely—including the dry-run path. Return values are not covered, but no output schema exists and this endpoint's result is a simple state confirmation.

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 100% and both parameters are already fully documented, including the empty-array-clears semantics and the confirm dry-run behavior. The description restates that same meaning rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (replace) and resource (every global notification URL) plus the underlying endpoint, which clearly separates it from the add_notifications/delete_notifications/list_notifications siblings even without naming them. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools, so not 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: an empty list clears them, and omitting confirm yields a dry-run. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over add_notifications or delete_notifications, but the 'replace every' framing implies the bulk-overwrite use case.

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