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

The description adds '需要登录' (login required) and the partial update semantics ('只传想改的，其余保持不变'), both of which are useful behavioral context not present in annotations. It does not contradict the idempotentHint or readOnlyHint annotations.

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?

A single sentence delivers the login requirement, the action, the target resource, and the partial-update behavior with no filler. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple setter with six optional booleans: it covers the operation, authentication need, and update semantics. No output schema exists, but for an idempotent boolean-toggle update, this is acceptable and leaves little ambiguity for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each boolean parameter's meaning clearly. The description adds the important partial-update behavior, but it does not further elaborate individual parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('更新') and resource ('当前用户的通知开关'), making it clear this tool updates notification preferences for the current user. This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_notification_prefs and broader preference tools like set_my_preferences.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs to modify the current user's notification switches. It provides context through the '当前用户' scope and partial-update behavior, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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