set_notification_preference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. 'Toggle' is ambiguous for a tool that accepts explicit boolean and numeric values, leaving open whether it flips current state or sets absolute values. It also omits whether partial updates are allowed, whether settings persist across sessions, and any permission or macOS-version requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping qualifier 'for command completion alerts' appears early. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

Five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description must do more work than one sentence allows. It says nothing about partial-update semantics, defaults, persistence scope, or the effect of calling it with an empty argument object, all of which an agent needs before invoking it.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only adds the framing that these settings govern completion alerts, which mildly clarifies the meaning of 'enabled' and 'sound' but adds no syntax, units, or default information beyond the schema.

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: toggling macOS notification preferences scoped to command completion alerts. That is clear enough to distinguish it from unrelated siblings like wave_set_setting or execute_command. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, and the word 'toggle' is a slightly loose fit for a 5-parameter setter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as wave_set_setting. Nothing states whether it applies globally or per-session, whether omitting parameters preserves existing values, or what defaults apply. The agent must infer all invocation conditions.

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