bookshelf_update_config_mediamanagement

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, signaling a write operation. The description's 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance' merely restates this fact without adding new behavioral context like side effects or reversibility.

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 extremely brief with no wasted words, but the phrasing 'config mediamanagement' is awkward. Still, it is economically written.

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 write operation with a required id and a free-form body, the description is severely underspecified. It doesn't explain id, body structure, or the real-world effect of the update, making it very difficult 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the required 'id' or the 'body' object. An agent has no clue what the id identifies or what the body should contain, especially since body allows arbitrary properties.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('config mediamanagement'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_config_mediamanagement. However, it lacks detail about what the mediamanagement config covers, so it's not as specific as it could be.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the _by_id variants or GET tools. The WRITE warning is a caution, not usage context.

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