bookshelf_mark_history_failed

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

The description adds a WRITE warning and the side effect of triggering a re-search, going beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and the WRITE warning. No redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose, the side effect (re-search), and the mutation nature. It could optionally mention the history event ID explicitly, but the tool name and description make it clear.

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 single parameter `id` is undocumented in schema (0% coverage). The description refers to 'a history event' which hints that id is the history event ID, but does not explicitly define the parameter or its format.

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: 'Mark a history event as failed and trigger a re-search.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling history tools like bookshelf_list_history which are read-only.

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 the use case (marking a history event failed) but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like bookshelf_list_history or search tools. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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