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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by requiring explicit approval and limiting changes to user-requested settings, though it does not describe return behavior or side effects in detail.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical approval workflow. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

Covers the most important safety workflow for a destructive mutation: minimal changes plus explicit approval. It remains incomplete for the tool's complexity because it does not explain the nested parameter variants or what the call returns.

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?

The description adds meaningful selection policy for the 'changes' parameter: only include settings the user asked to change. However, with 0% schema description coverage and a complex nested anyOf structure, it does not explain the per-setting shapes, formats, or variants that the agent must construct.

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 and resource: 'Change one or more notification settings.' The scope is clear and an agent can distinguish this from the sibling read-only notification_settings_get by the mutation verb.

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 clear usage constraints: send only the settings the user asked to change, show exact changes, and get explicit approval before calling. It does not name notification_settings_get as the read alternative, but the when/when-not guidance is otherwise strong.

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