Save Preference

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict and needs less behavioral detail. It adds that the operation can 'update' an existing preference, but does not explain overwrite visibility, validation, or persistence behavior beyond that.

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 one focused, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording or unnecessary examples. It reads quickly and tells an agent what the tool does in one pass.

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 3-parameter save tool with no output schema, the description plus schema are mostly sufficient. The only real gap is the lack of explicit 'when to use this over sibling memory tools' guidance, but most of the structural needs are covered by the schema.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with meaningful descriptions for key, value, and category. The description only reinforces those domains without adding new parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Save or update') and names the resource ('personal coding preference') with illustrative examples ('style, tools, workflow patterns'). This clearly separates it from project or learning memory tools and makes its purpose immediately identifiable.

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 implies the tool is for personal coding preferences but does not explicitly state when to use it over generic memory_save or other sibling tools. No when-not conditions or alternative routing is provided, so guidance is limited.

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