segnals_set_notifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses that the tool is non-destructive, requires no confirmation, and performs deep-merged updates. It also lists valid keys, providing adequate behavioral context beyond the basic update action.

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 concise with three sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second adds behavioral traits, and the third lists valid keys. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has one complex parameter with nested objects and no output schema. The description explains the parameter's valid keys, merge behavior, and scope requirement, covering most user needs. However, it omits details about the response format or error states, which are common for such operations, leaving slight incompleteness.

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?

The input schema describes the 'preferences' parameter with keys and types, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds the behavior of deep-merging and reiterates valid keys, enhancing understanding. While the schema already defines keys, the description's merge clarification adds value, justifying a score above the baseline of 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 name 'segnals_set_notifications' combined with the description 'Update notification preferences' clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It explicitly states the verb (Update) and resource (notification preferences), distinguishing itself from sibling tools like segnals_get_notifications and other bot/strategy tools.

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 provides a required scope ('manage:notifications') and states the tool is non-destructive with no confirmation needed, guiding when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or compare to sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for a straightforward setter.

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