shelf_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this overwrites an existing status, creates a shelf entry if none exists, requires an authenticated user, or is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a significant gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb and the status values front-loaded, no padding. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but there is no wasted text.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema, no nesting), so the description is nearly adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple confusingly similar siblings, an agent needs at minimum a note on overwrite behavior and how this differs from shelf_bookmark/library_mark — neither is present.

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 50%: `book` has a description in the schema, and `status` is an enum. The description usefully glosses the enum values in natural language (want/reading/done), which slightly helps, but adds nothing to `book` (name vs. id handling, ambiguity resolution). Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 gives a concrete verb (标一下你自己的状态) and resource (a book on the shelf), and even enumerates the three status values. It is clear what the tool does, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like shelf_bookmark, library_mark, or library_save, which also write per-book state.

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 on when to use this versus library_mark or shelf_bookmark — all of which appear to write book-level marks. The description merely describes the action; an agent choosing among the sibling set has to guess. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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