update_preferences

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not explain whether updates are additive (deltas) or replace the entire list, what side effects occur, or any authorization or idempotency details.

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 very concise (one sentence, six words). While brevity is good, it sacrifices clarity and informativeness. It is not front-loaded effectively because it fails to convey essential meaning.

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 absence of output schema, annotations, and param descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success states, or how the tool integrates with other profile-related tools. The context of 'conversational' is unexplained.

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 should compensate. However, it only mentions 'preference deltas' and 'profile tags', providing no explanation of liked_tags, disliked_tags, or profile_id. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 'Apply conversational preference deltas to profile tags' indicates a verb and resource but is ambiguous. 'Conversational preference deltas' is not clearly defined, and it doesn't distinguish well from sibling tools like save_profile or get_profile. It gives a general idea but lacks specificity.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or restrictions. The agent receives no guidance on context.

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