Update my manga status

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

The annotations already indicate openWorldHint=true (fields omitted unchanged) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds detail: 'Creates the entry if absent; fields you omit are left unchanged on an existing entry.' This matches and enriches the annotations. It also clarifies authentication needs via login_mal or token. No contradiction with annotations.

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 no redundancy: first sentence explains core action and behavior, second adds the constraint, third covers authentication. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning 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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the core behavior (upsert, partial update), essential usage constraints, and prerequisites (authentication). The output schema is not repeated, which is acceptable. No further context is needed for correct selection and invocation.

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 100% (all 11 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds one extra constraint: 'Provide at least one field besides manga_id.' While helpful, it does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. The description does list 'status, score, chapters/volumes read' as examples, but schema covers all fields.

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 action ('Add or update a manga on the authenticated user's list') and specifies the resource (user's manga list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_my_manga_list_item' and 'get_my_manga_list' by mentioning create-if-absent behavior and specific fields (status, score, chapters/volumes). The title 'Update my manga status' is reinforced, and the description provides exact scope.

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: use this tool to add/update a manga on the list, creates if absent, and requires at least one field besides manga_id. It mentions authentication requirement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'delete_my_manga_list_item' for removal or note when not to use it. Still, the context is sufficient for proper usage.

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