update_suprsend_object_channel_preference

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that 'takes effect on the next workflow run; in-flight notifications may still send,' explaining the mutation behavior and idempotency. It provides useful timing context beyond annotations.

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 concise with three short paragraphs: first line for purpose, then parameter explanation, then when-not-to-use, then side effects and return. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 4 parameters (all described), no output schema, but description states 'Returns: updated channel-preference state on success.' Side effects are explained. For a state-modifying tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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%, baseline 3. The description explains is_restricted semantics: 'true blocks delivery... false re-enables it,' which adds meaning beyond the schema's brief description. It also clarifies that each entry is a {channel, is_restricted} pair, providing additional clarity.

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 'Block or allow specific delivery channels for ONE object, applied across ALL categories,' specifying the verb (block/allow), resource (delivery channels for an object), and scope (all categories). It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives like update_suprsend_category_preference_object and update_suprsend_user_channel_preference.

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 explicitly provides 'When NOT to use:' with two specific alternative tools: for per-category control and for users. It also mentions side effects like taking effect on the next workflow run, giving appropriate usage context.

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