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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, that it has no credit cost, and that turning notifications off has a real human consequence. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Three sentences, all earning their place: what it does, cost/safety context, and a user-confirmation warning. Front-loaded with the action and examples.

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 simple 4-boolean settings tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational concerns: what changes, cost, and human impact. It doesn't document all parameters, but the schema provides names and types, and the description gives enough context for the main use case.

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. It names two of the four parameters (notify_new_lead, notify_new_reply) and gives them meaning, but it doesn't explain notify_stage_change or analytics_emails_enabled. The description adds some value but leaves half the parameters undocumented.

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 clear verb ('Change') and resource ('CRM settings') and gives concrete examples (mute new-lead or new-reply notifications). It is distinguishable from siblings like crm_get_settings and crm_update_lead, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

The description provides a concrete use case ('while an integration drives the CRM itself') and a clear caution ('confirm with the user first'). It doesn't explicitly say when to use an alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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