parent_update_prefs
Update parent notification + language preferences.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| sms_opt_in | No | ||
| language_preference | No |
Update parent notification + language preferences.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| sms_opt_in | No | ||
| language_preference | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description lacks details on authentication requirements, side effects, or permission needs for this mutation tool.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but lacks essential details for a mutation tool with 4 parameters.
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, no annotations, and description does not cover return values or required fields, leaving the tool's behavior underspecified.
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 description adds no meaning to parameters like phone, first_name, sms_opt_in, or language_preference beyond their names.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Update' and resource 'parent notification + language preferences', distinguishing it from other parent tools like parent_me or parent_list_enrollments.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; it is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.