lattice_update_notification_prefs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: merging into existing prefs and ignoring unknown event types, plus the need to verify. This adds significant value beyond terse schema.

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?

Two concise sentences, no fluff. The key information about merge behavior and verification is front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 update tool with one parameter, the description is fairly complete. It could mention auth requirements or reversibility, but these are standard for update endpoints. The verification advice compensates for lack of output schema.

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%, providing an example and description of the preferences object. The description adds behavioral context (merging and ignoring unknown types), which clarifies parameter behavior beyond the schema's type definition.

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 tool updates notification preferences, specifies the merging behavior, and distinguishes itself from the sibling get tool by mentioning verification with lattice_get_notification_prefs.

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 explicitly advises verification with the get tool afterward, indicating usage context. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, but the merging and ignoring behaviors give sufficient guidance.

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