update_directive_preference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds that it updates an existing record, but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or what happens when the preference_key does not exist (though schema marks it as required). It adequately conveys the basic behavior but adds minimal context beyond annotations.

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, short sentence (6 words) with no unnecessary information. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, conveying the core purpose without any waste.

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?

Considering the tool's simplicity (5 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides the essential action and target table. However, it lacks additional context such as authorization requirements, potential error states, or a note about the return value (if any). Given that annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 all five parameters clearly described. The description does not add any additional meaning or example values beyond what the schema provides. It is a baseline score because the schema already does the heavy lifting, and the description offers no extra semantic enrichment.

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 action (update) and the specific resource (existing directive preference in directive_preferences table). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_directive_preference (create) and load_directive_preferences (read) by indicating that it modifies an existing record.

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 implicitly indicates that this tool is for updating existing preferences, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_directive_preference or load_directive_preferences). There is no guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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