Update My Manga Entry

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

The description discloses that the tool can create entries if absent, only changes provided fields, and returns updated status. This adds context beyond annotations (idempotent, destructive). It does not detail destructive behavior (e.g., clearing fields by passing null), but annotations already flag destructiveHint=true. Return value is mentioned, which aligns with output schema presence.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information: purpose and usage rules. No redundancy or filler. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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?

Given 11 parameters and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not elaborate on the majority of parameters or their interactions. While output schema exists, the description should provide more context for correct parameter usage, especially for less obvious fields like 'is_rereading' or 'priority'.

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?

With schema coverage at 27%, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'status' as an example for adding entries. Other 10 parameters (tags, score, comments, etc.) lack explanation of their effects or valid values beyond schema. The description adds minimal semantic value to the sparse schema.

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 tool updates or adds a manga entry to the user's list. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_my_anime_entry' and 'delete_my_manga_entry' by focusing on manga list mutation. The verb 'update' and explanation of creating if missing make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that only provided fields change and at least one field is required, which is a usage rule. It also gives an example for adding a manga (pass status='plan_to_read'). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'delete_my_manga_entry' or 'get_my_manga_list', nor does it specify when to use update vs. other mutations.

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