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

Adds real context beyond annotations by disclosing the required API-key scope (`users:write`) and the ambiguity of bulk behavior. It does not address the destructiveHint=true annotation (e.g. whether disabling stops in-flight or queued notifications), and setting an explicit true/false is arguably idempotent despite idempotentHint=false, but nothing in the text contradicts 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?

Three tight sentences: action first, parameter convention second, bulk limitation third, with the auth scope appended. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the module-discovery dependency, the bulk gap, and the write scope. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for invalid module/channel values and what users should expect the call to return.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by naming the discovery tool that produces valid `module` values and by restating the `enabled: true|false` contract. The account/workspace auth-selection parameters are only covered in the schema, not the description.

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 precise verb pair (enable/disable), the exact resource (a single notification module/channel combination), and gives a concrete example (email-off for due-date reminders). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pm_get_notification_settings, which it explicitly points to.

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?

Explicitly says where module names come from (pm_get_notification_settings) and preempts the obvious wrong assumption by stating there is no bulk endpoint and that bulk changes require repeating the call per channel. This is when-to-use guidance plus an explicit non-alternative.

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