set_core_preferences

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

With no annotations and a generic 'configure' verb, the description does not disclose side effects, persistence, permissions, or whether changes are reversible. It is unclear if this tool modifies global settings or per-category rules.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, leaving out essential details, so it does not fully earn 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?

Given the lack of parameter explanations and usage context, the description is incomplete for an agent to safely and effectively invoke the tool. It does not cover return values, errors, or interactions with sibling tools.

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 provides zero descriptions for parameters (auto, approval, excluded), and the description does not explain their meaning or expected values. The agent cannot determine what these array parameters control or how to populate them.

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 states a verb ('Configure') and a resource ('core memory category preferences'), but it is vague about what 'preferences' entails. It does not clarify whether it sets auto-approval, exclusions, or other specific behaviors, making it only partially clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_store or memory_amend. The description does not indicate scenarios where configuring preferences is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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