Set Writing Preferences

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

With annotations already declaring idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context: preferences are injected into the AI prompt and take effect on the next enhancement, fields merge into the existing profile, and an open project is required. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention that preferences persist in the database.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds unique value: what it does, how it works, when to use it, and prerequisites. No redundancy or filler.

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 7 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's effect on AI output, merging behavior, clearing semantics, and the need for an open project. It does not specify error handling if no project is open, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a settings tool.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond schema: 'All fields are optional and merge into the existing profile', clarifies clearing behavior for pointOfView, styleGuides, and customInstructions (pass empty string/array), and explains customInstructions is appended verbatim. This enhances understanding.

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 'Set the author writing preferences that shape AI writing output', specifying the verb 'set', the resource 'writing preferences', and the context of influencing generative tools like enhance_content. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_writing_preferences, which reads preferences.

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 says 'Use when the writer states a preferred tone, complexity, length, point of view, style guide, or a custom instruction' and notes the prerequisite 'Requires an open project'. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like get_writing_preferences to check before setting.

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