remind_set_notification_devices

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: a preview shows the exact mutation input, the first call is a no-op without confirmation, the confirmToken must never be invented or reused, and it is ignored when elicitation is supported.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then the confirmation model in three dense sentences with no filler. Slightly packed with parenthetical detail, but every sentence carries operational information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety model, the id source, the two-phase confirmation protocol, and token reuse rules. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 enable/disable and the confirmToken lifecycle are already documented in the schema. The description reiterates the confirmToken fallback but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (notification delivery devices), and identifies the sibling tool (remind_get_notification_settings) as the source of valid ids. An agent can distinguish it from remind_send_message or remind_get_notification_settings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing conditions: use ids from remind_get_notification_settings, and choose between the elicitation confirmation path and the two-call confirmToken fallback (MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). It also states the precondition that nothing is sent until the user confirms.

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