bookshelf_commit_manual_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds an explicit 'WRITE' warning that the instance is modified. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like moving files or whether the operation can be partially applied, so it adds only marginal context beyond the 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, though the second sentence could arguably be folded into the first. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

With only one parameter and an output schema present, the description should focus on how to construct the body. It fails to do so beyond naming the type, and omits any mention of prerequisites or typical flow (e.g., list then commit). The tool is not fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 provides zero description for the 'body' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates slightly by stating the body is a list of ManualImportUpdateResource, but this doesn't explain individual fields, required properties, or how to construct entries, leaving the agent without enough information to properly fill the body.

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 uses a specific verb ('Commit') and resource ('manual imports'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'list_manualimport' and other import-related tools. It also names the body type, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies this is the write counterpart to listing manual imports, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'bookshelf_list_manualimport'. Context is clear enough for an agent to infer the use case, but no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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