Set notification do-not-disturb state (verified)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that it 'verify[ies] the resulting state', which is a behavioral trait beyond a simple setter. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, error handling, or the format of the verified result. More transparency would be expected for a mutation tool.

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, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the verification detail. It's appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should specify what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation status, success message) and how errors are conveyed. It only says 'verify the resulting state' without detailing the verification outcome, error conditions, or edge cases. For a setter that verifies, this is under-specified.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single boolean 'enabled', and the description does not explicitly explain that true means DND on and false means off. While the name is suggestive, the description does not articulate the parameter's meaning or expected values, leaving it to inference.

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 description clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('Omarchy notification silencing'), and an additional behavior ('verify the resulting state'). This differentiates it from notification_dnd_status (presumably read-only) and other notification tools. The verb+resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives like notification_dnd_status or notification_dnd. There is no mention of 'use this to change DND state' or any exclusions. The context implies it's for setting, but no explicit routing is given.

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