mess_update_preferences

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it specifies this is a 'full replacement' operation (not incremental), requires all 5 boolean fields, mentions authentication requirements ('auth_key/session'), and documents the return value ('JSON status 204 on success'). Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature, but the description adds crucial operational details.

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 perfectly structured and economical: a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds essential information with zero redundancy. The bullet-point formatting enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 rich annotations but 0% schema description coverage, the description provides everything needed: clear purpose, complete parameter semantics, behavioral constraints (full replacement), authentication context, and return value documentation. It compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions and works effectively with the existing annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation and excels at it. It clearly explains the authentication options ('auth_key/session'), lists all 6 boolean parameters with concise explanations of what each controls, and specifies that all are required. This provides complete semantic understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Update all user preferences') and resource ('user preferences'), with explicit mention of 'full replacement' and 'all 5 fields required' that distinguishes it from potential partial-update alternatives. It precisely communicates what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('full replacement — all 5 fields required'), implying it should be used for complete preference updates rather than partial modifications. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the sibling list includes 'mess_get_preferences' which is clearly complementary.

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