communications_update_preferences

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 states 'Update', implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or output, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what 'contactId', 'subscriptionId', or 'preferences' represent, their formats, or how they interrelate. With 3 parameters and nested objects, this is inadequate.

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 'Update communication preferences for a contact' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('communication preferences for a contact'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'communication preferences' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_subscribe_contact', leaving ambiguity about their specific differences.

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. With siblings like 'communications_update_subscription_status' and 'communications_get_preferences', the description lacks any indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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