Household Update Household Preferences

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

The sentence 'This may create or update Monarch data' adds only a vague effect that largely restates the annotations already provided (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). It does not disclose what happens to unspecified preferences, whether this is a partial update, or what side effects may occur.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, which is good. However, the second sentence is vague and largely redundant with the annotations, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotation coverage of behavioral effects, the description is substantially incomplete. It does not explain what 'household preferences' encompasses, what the response looks like, or how the output_mode/fields parameters interact with the result.

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 description coverage is only 29%, covering just 'fields' and 'output_mode'; the five boolean preference parameters have no descriptions in the schema or the tool description. The description does nothing to clarify the meaning or effect of parameters like 'exclude_business_from_budget' or 'pending_transactions_can_be_edited'.

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 household preferences') and the resource, so an agent knows what the tool operates on. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like household_update_current_user or the read-only household_get_household_preferences, so it stops short of full clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related household tools, no mention of reading preferences first, and no explanation of prerequisites or update semantics. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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