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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: 'Save always pauses', 'never enables delivery', destination keys shown only once in the original receipt, request_id needed for recovery, URLs may contain credentials and stay private, and the required permission. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs for a mutation with idempotentHint but no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its hash binding, then layered required/recovery/security facts. Sentences are dense and information-rich with no filler, though the run-on semicolon style is slightly heavy for reading.

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 6-parameter mutation with a deeply nested definition, no output schema, and partial annotations, the description covers safety (always pauses), secrets handling, recovery, and auth. Missing only detail on the definition payload itself, a minor gap given its complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it names expected_preview_hash, rule_id, expected_revision, request_id, and rotate_destinations (via 'explicitly rotated destination keys'). It does not explain the structure of the large nested 'definition' object, which is the schema's most complex parameter.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Save a full owner notification configuration' clearly distinguishes this mutation from sibling enable_/pause_/preview_/get_attention_notification_rule. It implies a create-or-update operation and states the hash binding, but never explicitly names an alternative tool, so it stops 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?

Gives the discriminating condition between create and update: 'existing rules also require rule_id and expected_revision', and states the required scope 'notifications:manage'. The binding to expected_preview_hash implies a preview-first workflow, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not guidance is offered.

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