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

The description discloses critical behaviors beyond the annotations: it returns an approval URL first, changes only occur after human approval, and only supplied fields are persisted. It also notes the need to reuse requestId and details. No contradiction with annotations (idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive). It adds valuable context about the approval process.

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?

Four sentences, all packed with essential information. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by key exclusions and the approval flow, with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the essential flow: approval, no immediate change, and how to retrieve the result. It doesn't explain 'native review' in detail, but the output schema presumably handles return values. For an approval-based update tool with a nested object, it provides enough guidance for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'requestId and details' without explaining their purpose or the subfields (theme, currency, language, etc.). It implies you can pass only the fields you want to change, but doesn't elaborate on enums or booleans. The schema is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of coverage.

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 tool persists supplied notification/display preferences, using a specific verb ('persist') and resource ('notification/display preferences'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not send notifications or enable missing providers and returns an approval URL, making its unique role 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 clear usage context: it is the update tool for preferences, and it explicitly warns about what it does not do (send notifications or enable missing providers). It also explains the approval flow and how to retrieve results, though it doesn't explicitly name the read counterpart (auraspay_preferences_get) as an alternative.

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