bookshelf_update_remotepathmapping

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as 'WRITE' and states it modifies the Bookshelf instance, which aligns with readOnlyHint: false. However, it adds little beyond the annotation already conveying this, and it provides no additional context about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what specifically gets modified. destructiveHint: false is neither confirmed nor expanded upon.

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 brief and to the point, using two short sentences. No unnecessary words are present, but the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name and annotation. It earns a high score for economy, though it sacrifices substance.

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 a schema describing id and body, the description is too incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of the mapping, what fields are updatable, or how the update behaves. It also lacks any comparison to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the tool's usage context is still ambiguous.

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 two parameters (id required, body optional object) with no descriptions, and the tool description provides no explanation of either parameter. The body parameter is especially ambiguous—additionalProperties: true means any object, but the description doesn't clarify what fields are expected. With 0% schema coverage, the description fully fails to compensate.

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 ('remotepathmapping'), distinguishing it from related sibling tools like create/get/list/delete. The added 'WRITE' label reinforces that it's a modification operation. However, it adds no detail about what a remotepathmapping is or what fields can be updated, so it's clear but not richly descriptive.

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. It does not mention that it's for existing mappings only, nor does it reference the create or delete siblings. The agent must rely solely on the tool name to infer usage.

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