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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the update is partial, meaning only provided sections are changed, and that it returns the full configuration after update. It also clarifies the meaning of cutoffHours. This covers key behavior, though it does not mention permissions, validation constraints, or error handling, which would add depth.

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 dense but well-organized: it starts with purpose, then partial update behavior, then a structured list of sections, and ends with return value. The information is efficient and every part contributes value, though the listing of all sections makes it a bit long. It remains concise relative to the complexity.

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 nested config update with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is updated, how partial update works, what fields each section has, and what is returned. It does not mention error scenarios or edge cases, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and usage. The explanation of cutoffHours adds contextual completeness.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It lists all the config sections (bookingReminder, sessionReminder24h, etc.) and their fields, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it omits the apiKey and orgSlug parameters, which are part of the schema. The cutoffHours clarification is valuable, but the missing identifier parameters are a gap.

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's function: 'Update reminder/notification configuration for an organization.' It also specifies 'Partial update — only provided sections are changed,' which distinguishes it from the read-only sibling reminders_get_config. The verb 'update' and resource are explicit, making the purpose 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 provides clear usage context by explaining the partial update behavior and listing configurable sections. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use reminders_get_config to retrieve current settings' or note when not to use this tool. The partial update note is helpful but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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