users_prefs_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Set a user preference (legacy undocumented)', which hints at possible deprecation but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or reliability. The 'undocumented' label itself is a transparency cue, but it's minimal.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the action. Every word contributes, though it could include more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what types of preferences exist, whether there are valid values, or how this relates to the 'users_prefs_get' tool. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the 'legacy undocumented' label suggests missing information.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions ('Name of the preference to set' and 'Value to assign to the preference'). No examples or constraints are provided.

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 tool sets a user preference, which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like users_prefs_get or users_profile_set, which also deal with user settings. The 'legacy undocumented' note provides some context but not enough to distinguish.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like users_profile_set or users_prefs_get. It only labels it as 'legacy undocumented', which hints at limited use but does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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