update_preference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update' without revealing whether it creates missing preferences, requires authentication, or returns a response object. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being rewarded as highly informative.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this tool is not complete enough for an agent to call correctly. The agent cannot determine what 'data' should contain, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the preference does not exist.

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 has two string parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. 'name' and 'data' are left undefined—there is no clarification that name identifies the preference or what format/contents data should hold. The phrase 'specific preference' weakly implies name as a selector, but it is insufficient.

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 uses a clear verb ('Update') plus resource ('a specific preference'), indicating a single-preference mutation. It implies a targeted operation rather than listing or fetching, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_preference or list_preferences.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., whether the preference must already exist or whether it upserts). The intended usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'update'.

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