beel_update_me

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint: false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the language affects (interface, template names/colours, emails) and what it does NOT affect (per-company invoice/email languages). This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies side effects without contradiction.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains scope, then adds the endpoint. Every sentence carries useful information and the formatting is clean.

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, no output schema, and annotations already covering idempotency and safety, the description is quite complete. It covers the purpose, the parameter's effect, scope limitations, and the endpoint. Minor omissions like response format or timing are not critical for correct invocation.

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 describes the 'language' parameter with an enum (es, en, ca) and 0% schema_description_coverage means the description does not describe parameters directly. The description does mention the parameter name and its role, but does not list allowed values or defaults, relying on the schema for that. It adds minimal value over the schema, so a baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Updates'), a clear resource ('preferences of the authenticated person'), and names the exact mutable preference ('language'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly scoping to personal preferences rather than company or fiscal-profile settings, an important differentiator given the large tool list.

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?

It explains the scope of the language preference (interface, templates, colours, emails) and clarifies that it belongs to the person, not to a fiscal profile, which tells the agent when this tool applies versus per-company settings. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or give an explicit 'when not to use' statement, relying on the scope description to guide selection.

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