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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention that the tool overwrites existing settings, requires an expected_revision for optimistic locking, or offers a dry_run mode. Since annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description could have added value but fails to do so.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It is a list of nouns without structure or explanatory value, failing to earn its place by adding meaningful information for tool selection or invocation.

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 complexity of the tool—nested patch object, required revision, optional dry_run, and no output schema—the description is woefully incomplete. It does not address how to use the patch structure, what the revision means, or what happens on success or failure. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema, which is also sparse on semantics.

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?

The description does not explain any of the parameters. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by describing key parameters like layout, planche, or the patch structure, but it only lists vague categories. This leaves the agent without any semantic guidance for the many properties.

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 title and description clearly state the tool configures the appearance and reading of a shelf, with the description enumerating specific aspects (texts, six layouts, covers, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_shelf, get_shelf, and set_shelf_access.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied by the name that it updates an existing shelf, but no conditions or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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