update_suprsend_users_preferences

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

The description discloses that the call 'replaces, does not merge' and 'overwrites existing preference', plus explains the meaning of each preference value and the return behavior. This adds significant context beyond the annotations, which only indicate destructiveness and idempotence.

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 sections, bullet points, and clear separation of concerns. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently delivers all necessary information without redundancy.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations, the description completes the picture by explaining the replace behavior, preference values, and return value. No output schema is present, but the description adequately describes the response.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% and provides basic descriptions, the description adds important context such as the 'cant_unsubscribe' option (though not present in the schema enum) and explains the overwrite behavior for opt_out_channels. This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states the action ('Set ONE category's preference for ONE user'), the verb ('set'), the resource ('category preference'), and the scope (one category, one user). It also lists the possible preference values, making the purpose very clear.

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 a clear 'When to use' section and a 'When NOT to use' section that names three specific sibling tools and their appropriate use cases, aiding the agent in selecting the correct tool.

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