update_suprsend_category_preference_object

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

Annotations indicate mutability, destructiveness, idempotency, and open-world. The description adds crucial context: 'Replaces, does not merge. This call overwrites the existing preference for the named category. Previous opt-outs within the same category are lost.' It also explains preference values and return behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose due to the 'When NOT to use' list, but this is informative rather than wasteful.

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 (6 parameters, 4 required, mutation behavior), the description covers replacement behavior, per-channel opt-outs, preference value semantics, and return/error info. No output schema, so the return description is essential. Complete for its purpose.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of preference values (opt_in, opt_out, cant_unsubscribe) and the effect of opt_out_channels. However, it does not detail the format of category_slug or object_id beyond what the schema provides.

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 purpose: 'Set ONE category's preference for ONE object — opted in, opted out, or cant_unsubscribe (locked) — plus per-channel opt-outs within that category.' It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternative tools and their use cases.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with clear alternatives (e.g., update_suprsend_object_channel_preference, update_suprsend_users_preferences, update_suprsend_tenant_default_preference).

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