update_suprsend_users_preferences

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: the call 'replaces, does not merge' and previous opt-outs are lost. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds context on the replace behavior. However, the contradiction between 'ONE category/user' and the array schema undermines transparency. The description also mentions return states but no pagination or rate limits.

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 front-loaded key information: action, scope, replacement behavior, and when-not-to. It uses paragraphs and bullet-style lists for clarity. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy in repeating 'Set ONE category's preference for ONE user'.

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 (4 params, nested arrays) and no output schema, the description adequately covers return states (updated preference on success, structured error on failure). However, it fails to clarify that the tool can handle multiple users/categories despite claiming it's for single ones. No mention of default values, idempotency behavior beyond 'replaces', or rate limits.

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 meaning by explaining preference values (opt_in, opt_out, cant_unsubscribe) and that opt_out_channels are per-category. However, the description introduces 'cant_unsubscribe' which is not in the schema enum (only opt_in and opt_out are listed), creating a discrepancy. The description also says 'per-channel opt-outs' but the schema treats opt_out_channels as a flat array per category, which is consistent.

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 states 'Set ONE category's preference for ONE user', but the input schema accepts arrays for 'categories' and 'distinct_ids', implying it can handle multiple categories and users. This contradiction misleads the agent about the tool's actual scope. The verb and resource are clear, but the scope is inaccurate.

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 states when to use this tool (changing a single category for a single user) and when not to use it, providing three specific sibling tool alternatives (update_suprsend_tenant_default_preference, update_suprsend_user_channel_preference, update_suprsend_category_preference_object). This is exemplary guidance.

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