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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true ("does not modify its environment"), but the description explicitly describes a state change: resuming real-time WebSocket delivery and opting the user in to exchange_fills "on every transport" (persistent preference state). That directly contradicts the read-only claim.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with the core action first; the nested parentheticals are dense but every clause (all=true, exchange_fills behavior) carries information an agent needs.

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 3-param preference tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, invocation modes, and side effects. It omits any note about scope (session vs persistent) or what a successful call returns, for which there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: the all-vs-channels alternative and the non-obvious exchange_fills opt-in semantics.

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 verb+resource ("Unmute previously muted notification channels") that unambiguously marks this as the inverse of the sibling mute_notifications. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 explains the two invocation modes explicitly (list channels vs pass {"all": true}) and flags the exchange_fills special case, which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, state when *not* to use the tool or name related tools such as get_notification_settings.

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