notification_preferences_update

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (four delivery channels per preference), but it never says whether the submitted array replaces the full preference set or merges into it — the single most consequential behavior for an idempotent update tool.

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?

Two sentences with the action and channel semantics front-loaded, followed by an enumeration. The long event-type list is dense but earns its place because the schema has no enum; nothing else is wasted.

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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, most of the burden is already met, and no output schema is needed. Still missing for a preference-mutation tool: whether unlisted channels/event types are preserved or reset, and whose preferences are affected — both matter for calling it correctly.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description enumerates the valid event types (invoice.validated, sync.error, token.expiring_soon, etc.), which the schema does not provide — eventType is a free-form string with no enum, only an example. That list adds real meaning beyond the structured data.

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 and resource ('Update notification preferences') and narrows scope to 'specific event types', which is more precise than the name alone. It does not address whose preferences are being changed (current user vs. company-wide), which is the one ambiguity an agent might care about, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for specific event types' implies partial, targeted updates, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus notification_preferences_get, nor whether an omitted event type or channel is left untouched. Usage is inferable but never spelled out.

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