Apple Update Contact Preferences

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the operation is a persistent write that will influence future Apple-Tools routing decisions, not a one-off send or preview. However, it omits important update semantics such as whether existing preferences are replaced or merged, what clear_existing does, and whether unmentioned preferences are left untouched. The annotations only provide idempotent/destructive hints, so these gaps matter.

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 sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, and the purpose clause is useful rather than filler. It is concise without sacrificing the core message.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the tool has six input parameters with zero schema-level descriptions, and the description does not clarify the key update semantics or parameter relationships. An agent would struggle to know how clear_existing interacts with the preferred_* fields and would be uncertain which preference parameter applies to which communication scenario, making the definition incomplete for reliable use.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only paraphrases the preference fields as 'preferred communication routing' and 'channel and target'. It does not explain contact_id, clear_existing, or the distinction among preferred_message_channel, preferred_communication_channel, and preferred_message_target, which are the least obvious parameters and most likely to cause incorrect invocation.

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 clear verb ('Persist') and specifies the resource ('preferred communication routing for a specific contact'), and it explains the downstream purpose: letting Apple-Tools choose the right channel and target. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like apple_update_preferences or contacts_update_contact, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to persist a specific contact's communication routing preferences for later Apple-Tools use. But it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as apple_update_preferences or contacts_update_contact, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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