personalize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it returns something and costs 2 MESH, but does not disclose whether it modifies state, requires authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise at three sentences, with the main purpose upfront. It includes cost information and input format, but some phrasing (e.g., 'personalization' in last sentence) is redundant. Still, it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 no output schema, the agent has no description of the return value beyond 'what to show them and how'. The description fails to clarify the output format or structure, and omits the 'goal' parameter entirely. This leaves the agent guessing about how to use the result.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, so baseline is 3. However, the description only mentions profile and options, omitting the required 'goal' parameter. This mismatch could mislead the agent. The description adds little beyond the schema, failing to clarify semantics like the format of options or profile structure.

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 it personalizes content given a user profile and options, and returns what to show and how. It explicitly mentions the verb 'personalize' and the resource (content options). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'task-analysis' or 'structured-extract', which might also process user input.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to siblings such as search or fetch.

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