Update notification settings

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

Adds critical behavior beyond annotations: per-key REPLACE semantics (a partial list silently drops recipients/events), omitted keys are preserved, scout.signal_detected is forced to immediate regardless of input, and the response shape is named. This is exactly the kind of data-loss risk an agent needs, since destructiveHint=false would otherwise understate the replace behavior.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and replace warning, with the get-first workflow and the exception clause following. No filler or repetition.

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?

Output schema covers the return value and annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile, so the description's remaining job is the replace semantics and workflow — both fully addressed. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by clarifying the cross-parameter contract (each key replaces wholesale, so the full list must be supplied) and by flagging the scout.signal_detected override that the schema's enum does not reveal.

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 and resource ('Changes the workspace's notification email settings') and implicitly contrasts with the read sibling by mandating a get-then-update workflow. An agent can distinguish it from heliyos_notification_settings_get without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to heliyos_notification_settings_get to read current values before calling, and warns that passing a key means sending the complete list. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the read-before-write prerequisite is clearly stated.

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