bookshelf_update_notification

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

The description adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance,' which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false but redundant given the annotation. It does not disclose side effects, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or behavior under forceSave. Additionally, the parameter name 'forceSave' conflicts with the schema's 'force_save', creating ambiguity.

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 short, which is concise, but it omits critical context. The structure front-loads the purpose, then touches on a parameter, then a WRITE warning, but the low information density means the conciseness sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain the update semantics, the purpose of forceSave, or how to structure the body. The required 'id' is never mentioned in the description, and the forceSave/force_save naming inconsistency adds risk. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with rich parameters.

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 description mentions 'Query params: forceSave' but does not explain what forceSave does or how it maps to the schema's force_save parameter. The required 'id' and the 'body' object are completely undocumented. With 0% schema description coverage, this minimal hint is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 'Update notification' – a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling CRUD operations like create_notification, delete_notification, and get_notification. However, it lacks detail on what exactly is updated or how the update works, so it is not fully explicit.

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 such as create_notification or delete_notification. The WRITE flag is a generic safety warning, not a usage guideline, and no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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