bookshelf_create_customformat

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

The description adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance,' which goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating the operation writes and changes instance state. This is useful, though the annotations already imply it is not read-only. It does not disclose other behavioral traits like potential validation errors or return behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and the behavioral note in the second. There is no fluff, but the brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail. Still, it is well-structured and directly to the point.

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 complexity of a create operation with an undocumented free-form body parameter and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what to send, what to expect in the response, or any prerequisites. The tool is effectively unusable without external knowledge of the custom format schema.

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 a single free-form 'body' object with no property descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description provides zero information about what fields the body should contain, how to structure the custom format, or any constraints. This leaves the agent completely without guidance for constructing a valid request.

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 verb ('Create') and the resource ('customformat'), which distinguishes this from sibling tools that list, update, delete, or get custom formats. However, it does not elaborate on what a custom format is, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention using 'update_customformat' for existing formats or that this tool is for new ones. The 'WRITE' warning hints at side effects but does not provide situational context.

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