qui_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals the HTTP method PATCH, implying a mutating operation, but doesn't mention required permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens to existing preferences. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 a single sentence that immediately names the endpoint and then concisely explains the argument structure. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite an output schema being present (not shown), the input side is practically undocumented. The description fails to explain what 'preferences' means, which fields can be updated, or what a valid request body looks like. For a tool among many update_* siblings, this level of detail is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.

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 is a generic 'arguments' object with zero documented properties, so the description's breakdown into path variables, query params, and a body is valuable structural guidance. However, it doesn't specify which path variables exist (beyond instanceID in the endpoint), what query parameters are accepted, or what the JSON body should contain, leaving much to inference.

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 identifies the action as PATCHing the /instances/{instanceID}/preferences endpoint, which unambiguously signals an update to an instance's preferences. It distinguishes from the sibling qui_get_preferences by implying a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly say 'update preferences' or mention the GET alternative.

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 like qui_get_preferences or other update tools. It only explains how to structure the arguments (path, query, body) but doesn't state any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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