update_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the update is partial (PATCH semantics) and requires the ADMIN role, adding relevant behavioral context. However, it does not describe effects on existing fields, error handling, or return behavior, which leaves notable gaps 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?

The two-sentence description is front-loaded with the core purpose and role requirement. It contains no fluff, and every sentence earns its place. Slightly higher would be possible with more guidance, but conciseness is strong.

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?

The description lacks sufficient depth for a complex mutation tool. While the output schema exists, the open-ended 'patch' object and lack of parameter details make the tool underspecified. The role mention helps, but overall it is not complete enough for reliable agent invocation.

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 compensate by explaining the 'patch' object or its accepted fields. The open-ended patch property is completely undefined, leaving the agent without necessary semantic information to construct a valid request.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Partially update a library' clearly indicates the tool's action and target. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_library or update_series_metadata, which affect different resources or operations.

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?

The description provides a required role (ADMIN) but no comparative guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_library or update_series_metadata. It does not clarify when a partial update is appropriate or mention any exclusions, leaving usage context largely implicit.

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