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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive write), it discloses an auth precondition, partial-update semantics ('Only the fields passed change'), the side effect that turning texts off routes updates to email, and the return behavior. This is exactly the added context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but every clause earns its place, and the two settings are front-loaded as distinct toggles. The nested parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than an ideal layout, keeping it from a 5.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly states 'Returns the resulting settings', and it covers auth, patch semantics, and side effects for a simple two-boolean toggle. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: orderTexts is elaborated with the specific events (picked up, out for delivery, delivered) and the email-fallback consequence. Both boolean flags are given behavioral context beyond the terse schema text.

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 action (turning order-status texts and marketing emails on/off) on a named resource (Fold notification preferences), and enumerates the three order-status events controlled. It distinguishes its two channels from each other, but never differentiates itself from sibling tools like subscribe_order_updates, so it falls short of 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?

It gives one prerequisite ('Requires the connected Fold account') but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative such as subscribe_order_updates. Usage is only implied by what the toggles do.

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