notification_preferences_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that each preference controls four delivery channels and lists valid event types, which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether this is a partial update (only provided fields change) or a full replacement of preferences, and whether an omitted channel resets to disabled. For a settings-mutation tool, this merge-vs-replace behavior is an important gap.

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 compact two-sentence structure that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the event types. No wasted words, though the enumerated list could arguably be moved to the schema's enum constraints instead of the description.

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 settings mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it lists event types and channels. However, the partial-vs-full-update semantic ambiguity and lack of any mention of validation/error behavior leave important gaps for an agent deciding how to safely invoke this endpoint.

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 description coverage is 100% with all parameter fields documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the list of valid eventType values and clarifies the four delivery channels, but much of this overlaps with what the schema already describes. The description adds the enumerated event types which the schema only hints at with an example.

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 updates notification preferences for specific event types and enumerates the delivery channels controlled (email, in-app, push, WhatsApp). It distinguishes itself from siblings like notification_preferences_get and notifications_list by specifying the update action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these 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 implies when to use this tool (to update preferences for listed event types) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools like notification_preferences_get for reading current settings. The list of valid event types is helpful for usage context.

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