patch_notifications

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the phrase 'update select notification settings', which is consistent with the annotations but does not explain what 'select' means, whether it is a partial update, or any side effects. No mention of idempotency or other behaviors.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences plus an Args block. It front-loads the purpose and provides a clear, actionable instruction with zero wasted words. The structure is easy to scan and parse.

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 tool with one generic body parameter and an output schema present, the description still omits critical details: which fields are updatable, whether the update is partial or full, and what the response contains. The pointer to GET/schema is helpful, but the schema itself is empty (only body object with additionalProperties), so the agent is left with insufficient information to construct a valid request without significant external investigation.

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 contains a single generic 'body' object with additionalProperties true and no field descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates minimally by instructing the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn expected fields. This is a helpful pointer but does not enumerate or describe any settings, leaving the agent dependent on external documentation.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'notification settings', making the primary action and target unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling patch_notifications_by_id, leaving scope ambiguity (global vs. per-notification) unresolved.

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 advises reading the matching GET or /schema endpoint before calling, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like patch_notifications_by_id or list_notifications, and does not state the scope or conditions for using this particular patch operation.

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