move_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Move'), but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or effects on related data. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with full coverage in the description, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects or error handling, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains the meaning of both parameters ('book_id' and 'bookshelf_id'), adding value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond IDs being integers.

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 the action ('Move') and resource ('a book to a different bookshelf'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_book' or 'add_book' beyond the basic verb, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for reorganizing books versus deleting them (vs. 'remove_book') or if there are prerequisites like existing bookshelves. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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