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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive, idempotent, and read-only false. The description adds valuable context: the replacement semantics, the optimistic concurrency revision requirement (expectedRevision), and the separation of authentication/security emails. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, then essential safety warnings. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 mutation tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the revision check, and the safety constraint. The idempotencyKey is documented in the schema, and annotations supply the destructive/idempotent profile. Minor missing detail: explicit description of failure modes when the revision mismatches, but the description combined with the schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 33% (only idempotencyKey has a description). The description compensates by enumerating the preference categories (language, time zone, hours, pause, digest frequency, categories, maximum first deliveries), which maps to the nested preferences object's fields万万, making the opaque schema more readable. It also clarifies that expectedRevision comes from notification_settings.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace your own email preferences' and immediately clarifies what is being replaced (language, time zone, hours, pause, etc.). It also references the revision mechanism, distinguishing it clearly from the sibling helvabase_set_notification_rules and read-only notification_settings.

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 gives a 'when to use' rule ('Use only on the user's request') and a strong prohibition with a safety purpose ('never turn emails back on to bypass a pause'). It does not name an alternative tool, but the boundary of user consent and the pause exception provides actionable context.

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