Metis — Write User Preferences

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions merge behavior but omits important details: idempotency, error handling, authentication needs, return value. Output schema exists but description doesn't reference it or clarify what the tool returns.

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?

Brief two-paragraph structure: purpose sentence, merge explanation, then args list. No wasted words. The args section could be integrated more seamlessly but overall efficient.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not thorough. It explains the merge behavior and gives key examples, but lacks error handling, format spec, or return value description.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds value by listing example preference keys (news_topics, journals, etc.). However, it does not specify required JSON format (e.g., escaping, allowed types), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Clearly states it writes user-preferences.json produced by the first-run config wizard. Specifies merge behavior to avoid overwriting earlier sections. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool write_user_config, which might have overlapping purpose.

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?

Describes use case (first-run config wizard, incremental saves) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like write_user_config. Lacks explicit exclusions.

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