communications_update_preferences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing preferences not mentioned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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 parameters (including a complex nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the missing structured information about parameters, behavior, or return values. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional 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 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name ('communication preferences for a contact' hints at contactId and preferences). It doesn't explain the complex nested preferences object with its enums (status, legalBasis) or the relationship between subscriptionId parameters at different levels.

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 target ('communication preferences for a contact'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish 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. With multiple sibling tools dealing with communications preferences (communications_update_subscription_status, communications_subscribe_contact, communications_unsubscribe_contact), there's no indication of when this specific update tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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