Apple Update Preferences

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

With annotations limited to openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description must disclose side effects, but it only restates the core action of persisting defaults. It does not state whether omitted parameters are left unchanged, whether existing defaults are overwritten, or what side effects occur beyond persisting.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. The list of default categories is informative and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 15 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, this is too sparse. It leaves critical invocation questions unanswered: are all parameters optional, do nulls clear defaults or leave them unchanged, and how do sibling tools relate? An agent could call it with the wrong parameter group or without understanding partial updates.

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. It provides broad category mapping (lists, folders, calendars, archive mailboxes, communication routing) that helps group the 15 parameters, but it does not explain the id-vs-name pairs, whether IDs or names take precedence, or the relationship between default_mail_account and preferred_communication_channel.

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 ('Persist') with a clear resource ('assistant defaults') and enumerates the included domains: default lists, folders, calendars, archive mailboxes, and preferred communication routing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apple_get_preferences (reading) and apple_update_contact_preferences (contact-specific), though it does not explicitly name a sibling contrast.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apple_get_preferences, apple_detect_defaults, or apple_update_system_setting. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Persist' and the list of default categories; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use rules.

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