set_book_read_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether setting page or completed overrides existing values, whether page is validated against the book's page count, or how the completed flag relates to read status. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with front-loaded action. No fluff or repetition. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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 simple mutation tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral details like side effects on existing progress, validation behavior, and relationship to mark_book_read, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without further inference.

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 says 'Supply page and/or completed', clarifying that these two parameters are optional and combinable. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of completed (e.g., marking the book as finished) or any constraints like page being positive. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides partial compensation but not full.

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 (set) and resource (book's read position), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mark_book_read/unread which manage read status rather than progress. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from those siblings.

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 like mark_book_read, or whether it should be used in conjunction with get_book to verify changes. The description offers no context or exclusions.

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