Maître d'MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the PATCH-like merge behavior and states the return value ('Confirmation of what was changed'). Could improve by explicitly stating this is non-destructive to unspecified fields or mentioning idempotency.

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?

Well-structured with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Front-loaded purpose statement. Slightly verbose due to 9 parameters requiring inline documentation, but every line earns its place given the schema gap. Could be tightened by removing boilerplate 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels.

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?

Comprehensive given complexity: documents all 9 optional parameters, explains partial-update semantics for the PATCH-like behavior, and mentions return confirmation. Output schema exists per context signals, so return value need not be detailed further.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates exceptionally by documenting all 9 parameters with specific semantics: operation types (Replace full list vs Add/Remove single items), enum values for noise/seating preferences, and clear descriptions for thresholds.

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?

Clear verb ('Update') + resource ('preferences') + specific scope constraint ('without resetting everything'). The phrase 'Only provided fields are changed; everything else stays the same' precisely defines the partial-update semantics, distinguishing it from a full replacement operation.

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?

Explains the critical partial-update pattern ('Only provided fields are changed'), which implicitly guides when to use this vs. a full setup/reset operation. However, it doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools like 'setup_preferences' or 'get_my_preferences' that would provide explicit alternatives.

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