bookshelf_push_release

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are minimal. The description does not disclose the actual effects of pushing a release (e.g., whether it triggers a download, creates a record, or validates the URL), nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then provides the critical body structure. There is no filler, and every part adds value.

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's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key parameter semantics. It does not detail usage guidelines or side effects, but these are less critical here due to the straightforward nature of the operation. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a push operation.

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 is nearly empty (one 'body' object with additionalProperties true and no property definitions, 0% coverage). The description compensates fully by specifying that the body should be a ReleaseResource containing at least title and downloadUrl. This is essential information that the schema does not provide.

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 ('Push a release to Bookshelf') with a specific resource and provides an example use case ('e.g. from an external downloader'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the act of pushing a release into Bookshelf rather than listing, searching, or managing releases.

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 a partial usage context with 'e.g. from an external downloader', implying when the tool might be used. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_releases or list_release, leaving the usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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