Update my anime status

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the idempotent upsert contract ('Creates the entry if absent; fields you omit are left unchanged on an existing entry'), the precondition that at least one field besides anime_id must be provided, and the authentication requirement. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 three sentences with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. It includes only high-value details: upsert semantics, partial update behavior, required field validation, and login. No word is wasted.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with rich schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: scoping to the user's list, upsert behavior, partial updates, and authentication. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and every parameter has a detailed inline description, including enum values, ranges, date formats, and naming notes. The description only summarizes the broad field categories (status, score, watched episodes, dates) without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 says 'Add or update an anime on the authenticated user's list' and details the update fields (status, score, watched episodes, dates), making the action and resource explicit. It also clarifies the upsert nature, which distinguishes it from read-only anime endpoints and from manga-specific writes.

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 provides clear context: this is a write operation scoped to the authenticated user's anime list, with an explicit login requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_my_manga_status or delete_my_anime_list_item, but the anime-vs-manga and write-vs-read distinctions are strongly implied by the wording and title.

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