update_suprsend_object_channel_preference

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

Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by explaining side effects ('takes effect on the next workflow run; in-flight notifications may still send') and return value ('Returns: updated channel-preference state on success'). No contradiction with 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 and well-structured: a single sentence for the main purpose, a clear breakdown of is_restricted semantics, a separate 'When NOT to use' section, and side effects/returns. Every sentence serves a purpose with 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, usage guidelines, side effects, and return value. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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% (all 4 parameters described). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the is_restricted semantics and the format of channel_preferences entries. However, the schema itself already provides basic descriptions, so the added value is moderate.

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 exact action: 'Block or allow specific delivery channels for ONE object, applied across ALL categories.' It clearly identifies the resource (object), the scope (across all categories), and distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives.

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 lists when NOT to use the tool and provides specific sibling tool names: 'For per-category control — use update_suprsend_category_preference_object. For users — use update_suprsend_user_channel_preference.' This gives clear decision guidance.

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