update_privacy_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral implications. It only states 'update', implying mutation, but does not disclose whether updates are reversible, whether specific permissions are required, or what effects may occur on existing settings. No such details are provided.

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 only one short sentence, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical context and does not earn its place because it adds no value beyond the tool name. A concise description should be compact yet informative, which this is not.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no supporting context. It fails to describe what these privacy settings do, how they are grouped, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with multiple configurable fields, this is severely inadequate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all five parameters, each with its own description. Therefore, the schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics, and the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no extra parameter information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 privacy settings' simply restates the tool name without adding any specificity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_privacy_settings or update_legal_policy, nor does it clarify what 'privacy settings' encompasses. This is essentially a tautology, providing no new information beyond the name itself.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where a different tool (e.g., get_privacy_settings) would be more appropriate. The description is silent on usage context entirely.

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