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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false. It does not state that preferences persist, that this changes future agent interactions, whether it overwrites all prefs, or what side effects to expect.

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?

The description is very short and has no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A one-phrase label does not provide enough structure for a tool with five optional preferences and no output schema.

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 settings/mutation tool, the absence of any information about persistence, defaults, scope, or relation to sibling modify tools leaves significant gaps. The rich input schema mitigates parameter ambiguity but not the missing operational context.

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 100% and each parameter already has an enum or explanatory description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Agent behavior settings,' identifies the resource and its general scope, but it is a noun phrase rather than a specific verb+resource statement. It does not distinguish set_agent_prefs from sibling tools like modify_chat_settings or modify_profile.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling alternative to prefer. An agent cannot tell whether set_agent_prefs or modify_chat_settings is the right choice for a given request.

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