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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by detailing that unmentioned categories retain their settings, that categoriesJson only sets overrides (never removes), and that resetCategories drops overrides. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence carries useful information: scope, default behavior, reset semantics, valid categories, and the alternative tool. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it specifies the categories, the parameters' behavior, the scope, and the sibling tool. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly, including the distinction between personal and org defaults.

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?

Even though the schema covers both parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches their meaning by explaining the override semantics and the interaction between categoriesJson and resetCategories. It clarifies that categoriesJson can only set overrides, and resetCategories is the only way to remove them, which the schema descriptions do not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Set YOUR notification preferences'), clearly identifies the scope (personal vs. org), and explicitly names the sibling tool (update_org_notification_defaults) it is not. An agent can instantly distinguish it from get_notification_preferences and other notification tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for your own preferences') and points to the alternative for org defaults. It also explains the behavior for unmentioned categories and the role of resetCategories, leaving no ambiguity about when each parameter is appropriate.

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