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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent. The description usefully adds that data is deleted automatically after 24 hours and that no personal contact details should be stored, though it does not explain how clear_fields behaves or exactly what can be removed.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the action and scope, and then adds the two most important constraints. There is no redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 is complex and destructive, with a rich nested schema and an output schema. The description covers purpose, privacy, and retention, but leaves important update semantics unclear, especially how clear_fields works and when preference_set_id creates versus updates a set.

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 67% and the nested criteria object is heavily documented by the schema itself. The description enumerates criteria categories but adds little meaning for clear_fields or preference_set_id, so it only partially compensates for the remaining gaps.

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 a specific action and resource: save or change matching criteria. It also scopes the operation to this conversation and lists representative criteria categories, making it distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_matching_requirements.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Save or change matching criteria' and the conversation scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as get_matching_requirements. It does add the constraint that personal contact details must not be included.

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