account_preferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the condition for updating but does not explain side effects, what happens when updates are provided but confirm=false, or any permission/safety implications. The tool can mutate state but this is not highlighted beyond the conditional wording.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action (get) and clearly adds the update variant with a condition. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's dual get/update nature and lack of annotations, the description provides the core rule but omits important edge cases (e.g., behavior when updates are provided but confirm=false) and does not specify what account preferences are returned or modified. The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the tool's overall behavior is only partially specified, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 explain parameter meaning. It mentions 'updates' and 'confirm' but only in the conditional context, not explaining the structure of updates (an object of preference fields) or the role of confirm (acknowledging/authorizing the update). This leaves the agent guessing on parameter formats and interplay.

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 tool's dual purpose: retrieving account preferences, and updating them under a specific condition (updates provided and confirm=true). The verb 'get' and 'update' specify actions on the 'account preferences' resource, and the conditional logic distinguishes the two modes without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool: by default it retrieves preferences; if updates are provided and confirm=true, it updates. However, it does not mention alternative tools (e.g., accounts or session_details for related account functions) or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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