Update my manga status

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it creates the entry if absent, leaves omitted fields unchanged on existing entries, and requires at least one update field. It also discloses the login requirement. This complements the annotations — readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true — rather than repeating or contradicting them.

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?

Three dense, efficient sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, then the key behaviors are listed, and the final sentence supplies the minimum-input constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 13-parameter write tool, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when it creates vs updates, the minimum field requirement, and authentication needs. The schema carries the detailed parameter documentation and an output schema is present, so nothing critical 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds global parameter semantics that the schema does not capture: 'fields you omit are left unchanged' and 'provide at least one field besides manga_id.' This is meaningful guidance beyond the schema, especially for a 13-parameter tool.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Add or update a manga on the authenticated user's list'. The scope is evident — this is a list-mutation tool for manga, not an anime or read-only tool — and it is easy to distinguish from siblings like update_my_anime_status and delete_my_manga_list_item.

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 gives clear context: it applies to the authenticated user's manga list, requires a MyAnimeList login, and requires at least one field besides manga_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5, but the usage context is well established.

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