Настроить уведомления

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false and destructive=false. The description adds real value beyond that by spelling out merge semantics (unmentioned settings survive) and the reset-to-server-defaults effect of replace=true. It still omits permission requirements and whether the reset under replace=true is recoverable.

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, zero filler, and the merge behavior is front-loaded ahead of the replace caveat. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the two behaviors an agent most needs (merge vs replace). For a mutation tool it is nearly complete; only auth/permission expectations are missing.

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 0% and there are two nested-object-bearing parameters, so the description must compensate. It does: kinds is explained as a partial flag map (others preserved) and replace as a full-map replacement that resets omitted kinds — meaning well beyond the bare boolean schema.

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 (меняет флаги — changes flags) and resource (указанных видов — of the specified kinds), and the title pins it to notification settings. It is distinguishable from the read-only sibling notifications_settings, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 explains the semantics of the operation but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never points to notifications_settings (read) or notifications_filters as alternatives. The agent must infer the context of use on its own.

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