setParticipantPreferences

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

The description discloses the critical behavioral trait of full replacement, warning that omitted preferences revert to defaults. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so effectively, alerting the agent to a potentially destructive side effect.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear warning format. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating use case, listing fields, and warning about replacement behavior. Highly concise.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects) and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers the scenario. It explains the full-replacement behavior, guides partial updates, and references the read tool. This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for every parameter. The description adds no per-parameter semantics but provides overarching behavioral context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but adds limited extra value beyond schema.

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's action ('set a participant's scheduling preferences') and enumerates the specific fields it manages (working hours, blackout windows, buffer time, daily meeting cap). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'getParticipantPreferences' by implying a complementary relationship.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('when you need to set a participant's scheduling preferences') and when not to (if only changing one field, recommending a read-then-write pattern). It provides clear guidance on avoiding data loss.

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