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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those flags: it requires a USER API key (csu_), explains global versus per-workspace override semantics, clarifies that clear=true removes a stored deviation with fallback order workspace → global → default, and notes the weeklyReport behavior. This is high-value transparency with no contradiction against the 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 information-dense and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then mode semantics, auth requirements, and the inspection alternative. Most sentences earn their place, but the category list partly duplicates the schema enum and is incomplete, adding a small amount of unnecessary and slightly inaccurate noise.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, parameter interactions, fallback behavior, and the getter tool, making invocation feasible. It is not fully complete because it does not describe the return/error shape and its category list is out of sync with the schema enum.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter semantics burden and mostly succeeds: workspaceId, clear, weeklyReport, and the category concept are given meaningful behavior beyond their names. However, it omits the value parameter's accepted values, and its category list is an incomplete subset of the schema enum, missing meetings and signals, which could mislead an agent.

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 the exact operation — updating the calling user's notification email preferences — and additionally specifies the global versus per-workspace modes and the weekly report toggle. This verb+resource description is specific enough to distinguish it from the many notification-related sibling tools such as campaignstack_get_notification_preferences and campaignstack_mark_notification_read.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: to change the calling user's notification email delivery or weekly report settings. It also explicitly directs the agent to campaignstack_get_notification_preferences for inspecting current values, but it does not spell out when not to use this tool or contrast it with other notification update tools.

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