Update Chat Preferences

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the confirm-gate requirement, but does not explain what state is changed, whether changes are reversible, or any auth/permission implications.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 destructive mutation with 8 parameters, a nested payload object, and mutually exclusive input modes (flags vs payload vs payload_file), the description offers minimal context. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries parameter detail, but the description does nothing to clarify the payload-vs-flags choice or the scope of "community state."

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 description coverage is 100% across all 8 parameters, so the schema already documents account, confirm, payload and the four messaging flags. The description's confirm note largely duplicates the schema's own "Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action," adding no syntax or precedence detail beyond it.

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?

"Update Chat Preferences" simply restates the tool name and title; the only added information is the generic note that it "Changes community state." It never names which preferences are affected (messaging, voice, group messaging), so an agent cannot distinguish its scope from siblings like update_community or update_connect_settings.

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?

It supplies one concrete usage rule — confirm=true is required for the user-requested action — which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it names no alternatives and gives no exclusion criteria among the many update_* siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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