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

Beyond the supplied annotations the description discloses the auth requirement ('需要登录'), that results come back as the remaining list, and that setting a fact PUBLIC needs explicit confirmation — real behavioral context. '已撤幂等' restates idempotentHint rather than adding to it, but the surrounding operational details (20-item cap, confirmation gate) carry the score.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the login requirement, and every clause carries operational information. The arrow-and-semicolon telegraphic style is dense to the point of being slightly hard to parse, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

For a small two-parameter mutation with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description covers auth, confirmation, idempotent re-revocation, and return shape. It could be more explicit about whether revoking a fact also removes it from matching.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining that supplying visibility on a profile-complement fact means a visibility change that requires explicit confirmation, whereas omitting it means revocation. That decision rule is not stated in the schema itself.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('撤销指定偏好') and explicitly separates it from a neighboring operation ('偏好撤销不同于定位事实改可见性'), which addresses the main ambiguity with set_my_match_preference. It falls short of a 5 because the tool itself accepts a visibility parameter, so the boundary between 'revoke' and 'change visibility' is drawn in prose rather than stated unambiguously.

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 provides a concrete workflow ('list_my_match_preferences→撤销') plus a precondition to clean expired entries before hitting the 20-item cap, and the login requirement. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this when...' carve-out pointing at set_my_match_preference for creating or editing preferences.

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