writ_tenant_notify

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does disclose the dual read/write mode and that an empty string clears the webhook, which is useful. But for a mutation tool it says nothing about required permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, or reversibility of the change.

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, front-loaded with the read/write dispatch rule followed by per-parameter behavior. No filler, no repetition of the name, every clause carries information.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a setting-mutating tool with three undocumented parameters and zero annotation coverage, an agent is left guessing about permissions, partial-update semantics, and the meaning of step_up_webhook_type.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must do all the work. It explains step_up_email and step_up_webhook_url well, including the empty-string clear semantics. However, step_up_webhook_type is never mentioned, and no valid values (e.g. generic vs Slack) are given for either webhook parameter despite the description hinting that a type distinction exists.

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?

Opens with a specific verb pair and resource: 'Get or update step-up notification settings.' An agent immediately knows this reads and writes tenant notification configuration, distinguishing it from the credential/grant siblings. It does not explicitly name which siblings to prefer, but the resource is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Provides an implicit usage rule — 'With no arguments, returns the current settings. With arguments, updates them' — which is a genuine read/write dispatch instruction. However, there is no guidance on prerequisites (admin role?), when a caller should prefer a read-only path, or what to do if only one setting should change.

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