update_email_notification_settings

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, is idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation, such as whether changes are immediate, require authentication, or could disrupt email delivery. It does not contradict annotations, but it also provides no extra transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the operation. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, missing valuable context that could be conveyed without verbose language.

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?

Given 12 optional parameters and an output schema, this simple description is insufficient. It does not mention that all parameters are optional, that the tool likely performs partial updates, or the significance of 'apply_immediately'. The presence of a sibling getter is not leveraged to provide context about round-tripping. An agent would need to infer critical behavior from the schema alone.

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 each parameter has its own description, satisfying the baseline. The tool description itself does not clarify partial-update semantics, even though all parameters are optional and default to null. It does not explain that omitted parameters likely retain existing values or how 'apply_immediately' affects behavior.

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?

Description states 'Update the email notification settings', which clearly identifies the action (update) and the target resource (email notification settings). It is distinct from the sibling 'get_email_notification_settings' because it implies a write operation. However, it lacks details about scope or context, such as system-wide vs per-user settings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. It does not mention that 'get_email_notification_settings' should be used to read current settings first, nor does it explain the 'apply_immediately' parameter or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.

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