suwayomi_search_and_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the main side effect (adding to library when auto_add_first is true) but does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or what happens when no match is found. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is thin on behavioral nuance beyond the core action.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clean arg list. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. The structure is easy to scan and 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?

For a simple search-and-add tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and all parameters. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., behavior when auto_add_first is false, or how 'best matching' is determined), but these are minor. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query (search title), auto_add_first (marks top match as inLibrary), and limit (max results). This goes beyond the schema's bare types and defaults, giving the agent exactly what it needs to invoke correctly.

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 verb ('Search') and the resource ('manga across your Suwayomi database'), and mentions the optional action of adding to the library. It is distinct from sibling tools like suwayomi_get_library (which only lists) and suwayomi_download_chapters (which handles downloads), so an agent can easily tell when to use it.

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 implies the primary use case: searching for manga and optionally adding it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., 'For browsing the library, use suwayomi_get_library'). The context is clear enough from the action and the sibling names, but explicit routing would be stronger.

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