remind_set_notification_devices

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

Annotations declare only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that — the preview of the exact mutation input, the no-op-until-confirmed guarantee, and the two-phase confirmToken protocol with explicit prohibitions (never on first call, never invented, never reused).

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 the id source, then layers the confirmation semantics. Dense but every clause carries a constraint; the parenthetical mode reference is the only slight compression cost, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 zero-required-param toggle with no output schema, the description covers the full call lifecycle: id sourcing, preview behavior, both confirmation routes, and token handling. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly on the first attempt.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds framing the schema cannot: that confirmToken belongs only to the elicitation-less fallback, must be supplied with identical arguments on the second call, and is ignored when elicitation exists. That meaningfully shapes how the parameter is used rather than merely restating it.

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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (notification delivery devices), keyed by id, and names the sibling tool (remind_get_notification_settings) where those ids come from. An agent can distinguish it from peers like remind_get_notification_settings or remind_send_message at a glance.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the device ids, that nothing is sent until confirmed, and gives the two alternative confirmation paths (native prompt vs. preview + confirmToken retry). The conditional 'otherwise' clause names the fallback and the governing mode.

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