Save My Redmine Preferences

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: merge semantics (omitted fields keep saved values), focusProjects: [] clears the list, IDs are validated against live Redmine before saving, save is all-or-nothing, and teammates are not validated against /users.json. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but the validation and atomicity details are strong. A 4 is justified.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a 'Merge semantics' note, and a bulleted field list. It is moderately sized but every sentence adds value. The field list is concise and informative. It could be slightly more compact, but the structure is clear and front-loaded with the most important behavioral note. A 4 is appropriate.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no schema description coverage, the description does a good job of covering the essential semantics. It explains merge behavior, validation, atomicity, and field meanings. It doesn't describe the return value or error cases, but for a preferences-save tool with idempotentHint=true, that's less critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. A 4 is justified.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. The description explains each field group: focusProjects, defaultProjectId/defaultTrackerId/catchAllIssueId, defaultActivityId, teammates, timesheet, contentLanguage. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining semantics like 'projects the user works on directly', 'assignee shortcuts', 'workDays: [0=Sun..6=Sat]', and 'overrides the skill's English-only rule'. It doesn't explain defaultActivityName (which appears in schema but not description), but the description covers most parameters. A 4 is appropriate.

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 saves the user's Redmine preferences, with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('the user's Redmine preferences'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only preferences-saving tool among the listed siblings, and it details the fields involved. The merge semantics and all-or-nothing behavior further clarify its purpose.

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 explains when to use this tool: to save user preferences, and it provides context on how fields behave (merge semantics, clearing focusProjects). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes it clear this is the preferences tool. The note about contentLanguage overriding the skill's English-only rule gives usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when the user wants to change preferences' vs alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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