Configure User Prayer Preferences

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

Annotations already convey non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added 'persistent storage' context is useful but not extensive. It does not disclose overwrite semantics or whether omitted fields are preserved, but it does not contradict the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource first and then lists the configurable dimensions in a compact list. Every word adds information, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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?

The tool is complex (13 parameters, nested objects, enums), but the input schema covers every parameter and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to repeat return or parameter details. It adequately frames purpose and persistence, though it could mention that only userId is required and omitted fields likely remain unchanged.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each of the 13 parameters. The description adds a high-level grouping of parameters into categories and names madhab, reminder mode, and notification language, but provides no per-parameter meaning beyond the 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 names a clear action ('configures'), a specific resource (user prayer preferences), and enumerates the domains it affects: calculation parameters, location behavior, madhab, reminder mode, and notification language. This makes it easy to distinguish from the get_* siblings as the write/preference-update tool.

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 verb 'configures' plus 'persistent storage' clearly signals this is the mutation tool, while sibling names like get_prayer_preferences and get_prayer_status cover read-only retrieval. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it, but the read/write split provides clear context.

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