Update sender permissions — nested

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses side effects: 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and the requirement for confirm:true. It also warns about the PUT vs POST discrepancy in sample code, adding useful behavioral context that annotations do not cover.

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 information-dense but each sentence contributes value: endpoint, array structure, sample-code caution, preservation advice, body fields, reference link, and requirements. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then adds necessary caveats. Not overly verbose, though slightly heavy.

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 the tool's complexity (nested body, 4 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: endpoint, body structure, required confirm, side effects, and a reference. It does not detail the exact enum values or format of senderType/sender, but it directs to the official docs. This is fairly complete for a mutation tool.

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 only describes body as a generic JSON payload, but the description explains that the body is a top-level JSON array and lists the actual fields (senderType, sender, manageScenarios). It also clarifies that these are array-entry fields, not root keys. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's high-level body definition (75% coverage).

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 states the operation clearly: 'Update sender permissions — nested' and gives the exact HTTP endpoint. It is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool xmatters_update_sender_permissions (non-nested), so the agent must infer the difference from the 'nested' label and the array-structure note.

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 prerequisites (operator write opt-in, confirm:true) and a caution to preserve existing entries, but it does not state when to use this tool versus the non-nested variant or any other alternative. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use that when Y' guidance, leaving the agent to guess based on naming.

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