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

Annotations already cover the mutation/idempotency profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: partial-update semantics ("Only the fields passed change"), a scope restriction ("Personal account only"), and an explicit exclusion list for settings managed elsewhere. It does not explain reversibility of a destructive-flagged change, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three dense but purposeful sentences, front-loaded with the changeable fields and followed by workflow and exclusions. The mention of "Narrareach Settings" is slightly verbose branding but the content is not wasteful.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers scope, partial-update behavior, workflow ordering, exclusions, and the sibling alternative, so an agent has everything required 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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with formats and enum values. The description restates the field list and glosses articleLinkPlacement's COMMENT/BODY meaning, adding only marginal context over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific verb (change) and the exact resources (preferredTimezone, capitalizeGeneratedNotes, articleLinkPlacement, tagArticleLinksWithUtm), and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like get_settings and update_scheduled_note_account. An agent can distinguish this from any other update tool without opening a schema.

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 states an explicit workflow ("call get_settings first and change only what the writer asked for"), enumerates what cannot be changed here and redirects to Narrareach Settings, and routes one adjacent case to update_scheduled_note_account. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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