beel_update_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those: it discloses the HTTP method (PATCH /v1/me) and the blast radius of the change across interface, invoicing templates and outbound emails, without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then progressively adds scope and disambiguation. Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information; only the endpoint line is arguably redundant, but it is cheap and useful.

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?

A single-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema; the description covers purpose, effect scope and the person-vs-company boundary. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, missing only explicit guidance on what response to expect.

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?

Context reports 0% schema description coverage and one parameter (`body.language`). The prose compensates partially by stating that `language` is the only mutable preference today, but it adds no format, default or validation detail beyond the enum already present in the schema $defs. Baseline 3 for a single well-typed parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates the preferences of the authenticated person') and immediately narrows the scope to the one mutable field, `language`. It also separates itself conceptually from company-level settings, though it does not name a sibling tool explicitly.

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 explains where the setting applies (interface, invoice-customisation templates/colours, emails) and that it is person-scoped rather than company-scoped, which implies when to use it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative (e.g. beel_patch_company or beel_update_invoice_customization) for company-level language changes.

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