Update your AniList account settings

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by detailing login requirements, partial-update behavior, full-replace exceptions, server-side validation quirks (rowOrder, timezone, profileColor), and the dangerously surprising advancedScoring reordering hazard. It also warns about silent deletion of custom lists and unrevertable changes, providing crucial safety context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and uses parentheticals for critical warnings. It is reasonably concise given the complexity, but the long sentence with nested clauses ('...PLUS ... a third...') could be more readable if restructured into bullets or shorter sentences.

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 complex tool with 16 parameters, nested objects, and no required parameters, the description covers all essential non-obvious behaviors: login scope, partial-update semantics, full-replace exceptions, and dangerous side effects. The output schema handles return values, and the description even flags experimental fields and validation failures, making it complete for safe usage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and highly detailed property descriptions, the schema already does heavy lifting. The tool description adds cross-cutting semantics like 'most fields are a true partial update' and highlights the three full-replace exceptions, which helps the agent understand parameter behavior at a glance, though much of this is also present in individual schema descriptions.

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 opens with '[Requires login] Update settings on the authenticated user's own AniList account' which clearly identifies the verb (update), resource (user account settings), and scope (own account). It lists the types of settings, distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like get_authorized_user and get_user_profile.

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 provides clear context: requires login, targets the authenticated user's own settings, and states the 'only set the fields you want to change' partial-update rule. It explicitly warns about non-partial exceptions (notificationOptions, disabledListActivity, customLists) and advises fetching current state first, but does not name alternative tools for when not to use it.

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