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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful context in 'Requires member:write', which annotations do not express. However, it is silent on partial-update semantics (whether omitted optional fields are preserved or cleared), which matters for a 9-parameter, zero-required update.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the permission requirement and scope, no filler. The field enumeration is dense but each item corresponds to a real parameter, so nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the permission/scope are stated. The remaining gap is behavioral: for an all-optional 9-param update to a shared state object, an agent cannot tell whether omitted fields are left untouched or reset, which is the key ambiguity for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does map to all nine parameters: goals, interests, targetRoles, targetCompanies, foodPreferences, pace, dayStart/dayEnd ('day window'), and bufferMinutes ('scheduling buffer'). It adds field-level meaning the bare schema lacks, though it gives no format or constraint detail (e.g., maxItems, 0-90 buffer range).

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?

Specific verb (Update) plus resource (guide preferences) for the connected member, and it enumerates the concrete fields affected (goals, interests, target roles/companies, food preferences, pace, day window, buffer). That clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_my_guide_state, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only guidance is a scope constraint ('for the connected member only'); there is no statement of when to call this versus save_guide_item, plan_day, or plan_conference_week, and no prerequisites or exclusions beyond the permission note.

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