write_user_preferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool merges the provided JSON into existing preferences, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important aspects such as whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, or error handling. The merge behavior is helpful but leaves gaps.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences plus a parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value: the first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the key behavioral trait (merge), and the third clarifies the parameter. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema (which need not be described per rules), the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics adequately. It explains the merge behavior and provides example keys, making it complete enough for an agent to use correctly. Minor omission: no mention of the return value, but the output schema compensates.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is essential. It includes an 'Args' section that explains json_content as a JSON string with example keys (news_topics, journals, etc.), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. While it does not define the exact structure, the examples improve usability.

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 writes 'user-preferences.json' produced by the first-run config wizard. The verb 'write' and the specific resource are explicitly mentioned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like write_user_config by targeting preferences specifically.

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 a clear usage context: it is meant for incremental saves of the first-run config wizard to avoid overwriting earlier sections. This implies when to use the tool effectively. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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