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

Adds context beyond annotations: permission requirement, partial-update behavior, clearing semantics ('[] turns early warnings off', 'null clears it'), and retry safety via idempotency_key. It does not frame the destructiveHint=true warning explicitly (e.g., that clearing thresholds removes existing alerting), so destructive consequences are only implied through field semantics.

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 front-loaded with the operation and then packs useful constraints into a compact paragraph. It is dense but every sentence carries information; only minor tightening would improve readability.

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 annotations covering safety and idempotency hints, the description covers the main calling requirements: permission, partial update behavior, field clearing rules, and retry semantics. Missing details about workspaceId vs workspace_id and sparse body/query overrides are minor given schema presence and lack of an 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 67%, and the description clarifies thresholds bounds and empty-list meaning, notifyRoles recipients and 'owners and admins always' behavior, extraEmail null clearing, and idempotency_key retry semantics. It does not mention workspaceId/workspace_id or body/query overrides, but it meaningfully extends beyond the schema for the core fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update the workspace's AI credit alert settings') and is clearly the mutation counterpart to the sibling aidelly_get_ai_credit_alert_settings. An agent can identify both the scope and the operation 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?

Explains partial-update semantics ('Fields left out keep their values') and the required permission, which tells the agent when the call is appropriate. It does not explicitly say to read current settings first via the get sibling or name conditions when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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