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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the crucial partial-update contract ('Only the switches you send change') plus the auth/plan/Slack-connection requirements. It stops short of spelling out the destructive consequence of turning a channel off, which the annotations only hint at.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every subsequent sentence carries information (scope of change, plan/connection requirements, where routing rules live, admin restriction). Six short sentences is slightly more than minimal, but none are filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the behavioral, authorization and precondition surface an agent needs before invoking a 4-boolean admin mutation. The only real gap is the unnamed read sibling for inspecting current state.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning the schema lacks: slack_alerts and slack_digest are conditional sub-switches that only matter when slack is on, and Slack receives the finished cycle regardless. The email flag still has no description anywhere.

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?

Specific verb ('turns ... on or off') on a specific resource (delivery by email and Slack), and it enumerates the concrete sub-channels (finished cycle, daily digest, high signal alerts). This clearly separates it from the read-side sibling get_delivery_settings.

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 real preconditions: 'Admin only', 'Slack needs Growth or above and a Slack connection made in the app', and notes that channel routing rules live in the app rather than here. It doesn't name get_delivery_settings as the read counterpart, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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