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

Annotations already declare this as an idempotent, non-destructive write. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing plan requirements (Plus), delivery-availability preconditions, membership verification, and that the acting teammate is not subscribed. This is exactly the extra 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?

Three sentences, zero filler, action front-loaded in the first clause. Each sentence adds new information: precondition, exclusion, side-effect scope.

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 two-parameter boolean toggle with no output schema, the description covers behavior, preconditions, and non-effects thoroughly. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail, particularly what the 'id' refers to, which the schema does not supply.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It conveys that 'enabled' toggles view email alerts and implies 'id' is a document identifier via 'per-document', but never confirms the id is a document UUID or explains request/response semantics for either field.

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 verb pair (enable/disable) and a precise resource (per-document view email alerts to the workspace paying account), plus explicit negative scope. An agent can distinguish this from get_document_alerts and update_document_reader_settings without opening either 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?

Clearly states preconditions: enabling requires Plus and available email delivery, the paying account must remain a verified workspace member, and disabling is allowed after downgrade. It also rules out adjacent behaviors (personal alerts, publication, sharing), but never names a sibling tool as the alternative for those cases.

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