set_notification_source

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description needn't restate safety. It does add genuinely useful behavior beyond them — that other source rules are preserved, i.e. a partial merge rather than a full replace — but stays silent on what happens for an unknown source or how defaults are applied to unspecified fields.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the preserve-semantics clause appended where it matters. No waste.

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?

Annotations and the enum carry part of the load, and no output schema is needed. But for a configuration tool whose required key is opaque, the description leaves the most important semantic — what identifies a source — unexplained.

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 0% across 3 parameters. The description gestures at 'audio' and 'delivery' but never defines what a 'source' is (app, package, device, contact?), which is the required parameter, nor explains the audio enum values (default/silent/chime/speech) or the effect of enabled.

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+resource: setting a source's notification delivery/audio rule. Clear enough to act on, though it doesn't differentiate from neighboring notification tools (snooze_notifications, dismiss_notification, publish_notification) which operate on notifications rather than per-source rules.

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?

Usage is implied — you call it to configure how a given source notifies. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no guidance on how this relates to snooze/dismiss or to global notification settings.

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