communications_update_preferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters (including complex nested objects), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets updated, how the parameters interact, what legal basis or status values mean, or what the tool returns. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (including a nested object with 4 properties), the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'contactId', 'subscriptionId', or 'preferences' represent, nor does it clarify the relationship between these parameters or the meaning of the nested preference fields.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('communication preferences for a contact'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_subscribe_contact', but the specificity of 'preferences' (vs 'status' or subscription actions) provides some implicit distinction.

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 versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools in the communications domain (get_preferences, subscribe_contact, unsubscribe_contact, update_subscription_status), there's no indication of when this update tool is appropriate versus those other operations. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.

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