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

Annotations already mark this as a destructive write operation, and the description adds meaningful nuance: 'Replaces the contents of the shelf' while 'The PDFs themselves are kept.' This clarifies what is destroyed and what is preserved, going beyond the raw destructiveHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently adds an important safety clarification. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with a required `expected_revision` and a `dry_run` option, this description is incomplete: it never mentions how to obtain or use the revision, what dry-run mode does, or what success/failure looks like. The absence of an output schema makes the missing behavioral details more significant. It is a concise description but not a complete calling contract.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the semantics of `items` as an 'ordered list with collection names.' It does not explain the required `expected_revision` field, the `dry_run` flag, or how `shelf_id` should be supplied. The required concurrency and preview parameters are left entirely to inference from their field names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces the contents of the shelf with this ordered list with collection names.' It clearly distinguishes this from generic shelf operations like foliade_update_shelf by focusing on catalogue composition and ordering. The added clarification that PDFs are kept further sharpens the purpose.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as foliade_update_shelf, foliade_set_shelf_access, or foliade_create_shelf. The intended use is only implied by the operation itself, with no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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