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

The annotations declare a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is idempotent but destructive, and the description describes a reversible-sounding on/off toggle without addressing the destructive aspect. It also leaves unanswered a key behavioral question for a partial-update tool: whether categories and channels not listed in the switches array keep their current state. The channel caveats do add some real behavioral context 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?

Three short sentences, each contributing new information (scope, push caveat, telegram prerequisite), with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the input schema is fully annotated, the description covers channels and prerequisites well. The notable remaining gap is that it does not say whether the switches array is a partial update or a full replacement of the user's notification settings, which matters for a mutation tool.

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% and the switches array documents every category and channel, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: push only controls the per-category switch rather than enabling browser push, and telegram requires a linked chat first.

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 and resource: turning the user's notifications on or off per category and channel, and it enumerates the four channels (inApp, push, email, telegram). That distinguishes it from notifications.read and notifications.reset by inference, but the description never explicitly names those siblings or states how it differs from them.

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 gives a useful prerequisite (Telegram requires a linked chat first) and clarifies that push is only a per-category switch, with browser push turned on in the browser. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to use this tool rather than notifications.reset or notifications.read, and no statement of when not to use it.

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