communications_update_preferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a tool that modifies contact preferences (potentially sensitive data), this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with 3 required parameters (including a nested object with legal/enum fields), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, behavioral implications, or what constitutes valid preference updates, leaving critical gaps for proper tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'communication preferences' but doesn't explain what the three required parameters (contactId, subscriptionId, preferences) represent or how they relate to each other. The preferences object contains complex fields like legalBasis with specific enum values that are completely undocumented in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('communication preferences for a contact'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_subscribe_contact', which appear to handle similar communication preference operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_subscribe_contact/unsubscribe_contact'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions that would help an agent choose correctly among similar communication tools.

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