set_notification_preferences

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that certain operations require specific assurances (email_verified, operator_passkey), which is behavioral. However, it does not mention error behaviors, idempotency, or side effects beyond the constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key behavioral constraints.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention return values. For an update tool with 8 optional parameters, the description is adequate but could be more complete by indicating success/failure indicators.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no significant additional meaning beyond repeating the webhook_url assurance already in the schema. Baseline score applies.

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 'Update operator notification preferences' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_notification_preferences' by implying a write operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the sibling list.

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 important context on assurance requirements for specific changes (cross-wallet effects, webhook URL). However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or explicitly indicate when not to use it.

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