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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-destructive; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: merge semantics (unspecified fields are left unchanged), the owner/admin authorization gate for workspace settings, the confirmation requirement before turning off alerts, and that it returns the resulting state ('Devuelve cómo quedó todo'). This goes well beyond the 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?

The group-by-bullets structure is front-loaded and scannable, and the length is justified by 11 parameters with nested objects. Only minor redundancy between the group headers and the field enumeration keeps it from a 5.

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 complex partial-update tool with nested objects and no output schema, it covers the essentials: merge behavior, permission tiers, confirmation caution, value constraints, and the fact that the full resulting state is returned. Only the read/write round-trip with get_settings is left implicit.

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 only 55% schema description coverage and 11 params (including nested objects), the description carries real weight: it enumerates the avisos keys, caps minutos_antes_de_eventos at 5 (matching maxItems), documents informe_vos_dias 7|15|30, idioma es|en, tema_oscuro values, pomodoro fields, digest fields with 'hora en la zona de la persona', and IANA zona_horaria. It adds semantics the schema doesn't, though not every nested field is individually explained.

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+resource ('Cambia ajustes') and immediately scopes it as a partial update ('sólo los que se pasan, lo demás queda igual'), which is the key behavior an agent needs. It does not explicitly name the read counterpart get_settings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage context: workspace-scoped settings require owner/admin ('Del workspace (dueño o admin)'), and it instructs to confirm with the person before disabling notifications. It lacks an explicit 'use get_settings to read first' pointer, but the conditions for correct use are clear.

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