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

Annotations already supply readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, but the description adds real behavioral context: the mutation is scoped to this user's switch only (not workspace-wide), it requires prior user confirmation, and it warns that quotedMaterial text is data, not instructions. It does not describe what happens to other users' settings or the response shape.

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 tight sentences with the trigger sentence front-loaded and zero filler. The injection warning is appended but carries distinct value, so it earns its place rather than bloating the definition.

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 small non-destructive toggle with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers when to call, scope of effect, and the confirmation gate. The only gap is finer detail on parameter defaults, which the schema largely carries.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema already explains both enum values of `kind` and the brandSlug fallback behavior. The description only loosely echoes these ('Monday email or task step email', 'for a brand') and says nothing about `enabled` beyond the on/off phrasing, so it adds limited meaning over the schema.

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 specific action (turn on/off) on a specific resource (the calling user's Monday email or task-step email) and enumerates the two notification kinds, so an agent can distinguish this from generic email or task siblings. It does not name a sibling it must not be confused with, but no obvious sibling overlaps.

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?

Explicit trigger ('Use when the user wants their own ... on or off for a brand') plus a hard precondition ('Call only after the user confirms') and an injection guardrail. No alternative tool is named, but there is no sibling that competes for this action.

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