set_notification_preferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cross-wallet effects require email_verified assurance and webhook changes require operator_passkey assurance, which is helpful. However, it omits details on consequences of unmet prerequisites, whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, or return behavior. Partial transparency is achieved.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately adding key constraints. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. It is efficient 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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and the complexity of notification preferences, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'notification preferences' encompasses, the operator concept, or how updates merge with existing settings. It lacks context about return values or side effects, demanding prior knowledge.

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% with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'update' and the assurance notes, which are already partially reflected in parameter descriptions (e.g., webhook_url mentions requires operator_passkey assurance). Thus the description provides marginal value over the schema, earning a baseline 3.

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 'Update operator notification preferences' with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_low_balance_alert or set_mailbox_defaults, which are also update operations. The mention of cross-wallet and webhook assurance adds specific scope but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_notification_preferences or test_notification. The description mentions assurance prerequisites but does not clarify when to invoke this vs other set tools, nor does it give exclusions or preferred contexts.

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