configure_desktop_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'configures' which implies changing settings, but it does not mention whether changes are persistent, require a restart, or have side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of detail leaves the agent without critical behavioral expectations.

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 that front-loads the main action and enumerates the key configurable fields. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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?

For a simple configuration tool with three boolean parameters and no output schema, the description provides a satisfactory overview. It could mention return behavior or persistence, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all three boolean parameters ( sound, enabled, persistentOverlay). The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: configuring native desktop notifications, specifically listing the configurable aspects (enable, sound, persistent status). The verb 'configure' is specific, and the resource is clearly identified, distinguishing it from the unrelated sibling 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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool (when configuring desktop notifications) by naming the resource and the settings. There are no exclusions or alternative tools mentioned, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no comparison is needed. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for notification settings.

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