update_preferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but it doesn't specify whether changes are immediate, require authentication, have side effects, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and efficiently states the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies user settings, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The schema fully documents all 5 boolean parameters with clear descriptions, so the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add extra meaning.

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 'Update your preferences' clearly indicates a write operation on user preferences, but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_preferences' or 'reset_qr_token'. It states the verb ('update') and resource ('preferences') but lacks specificity about what preferences are involved.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_preferences' (for viewing) or 'reset_qr_token' (which handles token resets). The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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