supportpages_set_hosting_reminders

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-open-world write, but the description adds real value: the setting is device-scoped ('covers every local folder on this device for this API origin'), persists until explicitly reversed, and explicitly does not affect article generation or hosting. That is exactly the kind of scope/persistence/reversibility context annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb, each adding a distinct fact (scope, prerequisites, persistence/limits). Slightly dense on colons and clauses but nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, persistence, and side-effect boundaries for a simple preference toggle. The only real hole is the unexplained 'workspace' parameter.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It implicitly covers 'enabled' via 'Enable or disable' but never addresses the optional 'workspace' parameter at all, and its claim that the preference is device-wide is in tension with the existence of a workspace argument.

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 (enable/disable) plus a specific resource (hosting reminders shown after an article is saved locally), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like supportpages_set_repository_reminders or supportpages_set_telemetry by name. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'when the user asks' supplies a weak trigger condition, and 'Needs no account or help centre' removes one prerequisite. However, no when-not guidance is given and no alternative is named, so the agent must infer when this is preferable to set_repository_reminders.

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