bookshelf_update_customformat

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance', which reinforces the write nature and specifies the affected scope. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, or handling of missing IDs.

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 two short sentences, with the first stating the action and the second noting the write side-effect. It is front-loaded and free of verbose language, but the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the annotation.

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 an update tool with an open-ended body parameter, the description lacks essential context. It does not describe what fields the body should contain or how the id identifies the target customformat. The output schema exists, but input semantics remain unexplained, making this inadequate 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of the 'id' or 'body' parameters. With 'body' being an open object (additionalProperties: true), the agent has no hints about required fields or structure. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 explicitly states 'Update customformat', providing a specific verb and resource. It also adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance', clarifying the side-effect. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete/list/get customformat.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for modifying an existing customformat, nor does it reference create/delete/list sibling tools. The description only restates the action without contextual usage cues.

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