updateNotificationPreferencesUpdate the current user's notification preferences for weekly, billing, deployment, product, and incident alerts.
Update notification preferences for the current user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestBody | No | The JSON request body. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a mutation, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but it does not go beyond the annotations to describe side effects, idempotency, or potential impacts of changing preferences.
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 a single clear sentence with no redundant wording, making it concise and well-structured.
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 simple preference-update tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the effect or the fact that this modifies the authenticated user's settings, but the current wording is sufficient for basic usage.
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?
The input schema already covers all parameters with self-explanatory boolean property names, and the description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('notification preferences'), and the scope ('for the current user'), making it easy to distinguish from the sibling getNotificationPreferences tool.
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 does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getNotificationPreferences, nor does it mention any preconditions or related operations. It relies on the tool name to imply the read/write distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.