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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses the account requirement, that preferences apply to all future orders (a persistent side-effect), the partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass change'), the empty-string clearing behavior, and a max-length constraint. These details are exactly what the annotation set doesn't convey.

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?

Front-loads the account requirement and the core purpose, then details each parameter. Dense but well-organized; slightly long due to inline enum explanations, though these earn their place given the low schema coverage.

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?

Complete for a persistent, partial-update mutation tool: it covers account prerequisites, persistence scope, per-field semantics, clearing behavior, and a length limit. With no output schema and only 33% param coverage, the description fills all the gaps an agent would need.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines what each enum value means semantically (eco_unscented default, mixed = colors cold/whites warm) and explains the specialInstructions free-text and clearing behavior. This adds meaning well beyond the bare enum lists in the 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 and resource (saves standing laundry preferences for every future order) with the exact fields it controls. This clearly distinguishes it from the other 'update_' siblings (update_access_info, update_recurring_pickup), which cover different resources.

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 implies this tool affects every future order (standing preferences vs. one-off), which implicitly frames usage, but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or state prerequisites beyond 'requires the connected Fold account'.

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