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

Annotations already declare mutating-but-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real context beyond that: the value is never shown to members, an empty string clears the setting, notices fall back to the account's own email or phone, and a connected Phorme account is required. It stops short of describing error behavior if confirmation is omitted, but the schema handles that.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler, ordered from trigger to interaction rule to edge case to prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: the trigger, the confirmation protocol, the clearing behavior, the privacy constraint, and the account prerequisite.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'empty string clears' semantics and the confirmation gate. The description restates rather than extends this, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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 — setting the owner's email for plan notices — and frames the triggering scenario (owner who signed in by phone). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly adjacent siblings such as set_booking_notices or send_note_to_my_members, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use ('an owner who signed in by phone wants notices...'), an operational procedure (read the email back, set confirmation true only after they said yes), and the clear-state case (empty email clears it). The agent knows both the trigger and the required interaction sequence.

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