Set a game's shelf

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable context: using 'none' preserves rating/review/logs, and the tool reads the current state and only changes what differs. This aligns with the idempotentHint and provides concrete side-effect transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does, the second covers an important edge case and idempotency behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with complete schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the primary behavior, the special 'none' case, and the idempotency guarantee. Without an output schema, it appropriately focuses on inputs and side effects, making it contextually complete.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explicitly stating the effect of status='none' on existing data and clarifying the state-delta behavior, which enriches the semantic of the status parameter beyond the enum listing.

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 tool's action: moving a game to one of the user's shelves, with explicit shelf names and the special 'none' value. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like set_played_status, though the shelf context makes the purpose distinct enough.

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?

It gives specific guidance for using 'none' to remove a game from all shelves without deleting rating, reviews, or logs, and notes that the tool is safe to call repeatedly. It lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like set_played_status, but the usage context for the primary operation is clear.

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