Replace a preference section. Full document replacement; missing optional fields are cleared. Topics attached to the section are unaffected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human-readable name for the section | |
| section_id | Yes | Id of the preference section | |
| routing_options | No | Default channels for the section. Omit to clear. | |
| has_custom_routing | No | Whether the section defines custom routing for its topics |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate that this is a write operation and is idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: missing optional fields are cleared, and attached topics are unaffected. This meaningfully informs an agent's side-effect expectations.
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?
Three short sentences deliver the core action, replace semantics, clearing behavior, and topic preservation. No filler words, and the most important information appears first. Every sentence earns its place.
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 description covers the key behavioral nuances necessary for correct invocation: full replacement, clearing omitted optional fields, and non-impact on topics. The schema covers parameters. A note on the expected return value would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing for calling this tool correctly.
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?
The schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds general context around clearing missing optional fields, but it does not need to re-document individual parameters. This matches the baseline for fully schema-documented parameters.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace a preference section.' It goes on to clarify full-document replacement semantics, which distinguishes it from partial updates and from the related replace_preference_topic sibling. This is unambiguous and scoped.
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 phrase 'Full document replacement' implies the intended use case, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over create_preference_section, an update-style tool, or archive_preference_section. Usage context is inferred rather than 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.
