edit_library

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: it specifies that existing values are overwritten (so partial-vs-full semantics matter) and warns that flipping public status can expose a private library. That risk disclosure is not derivable from the annotation set.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the two behavioral caveats. No filler, no repetition of schema fields beyond what the risk warning requires.

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?

Covers purpose, mutation semantics, and the privacy hazard, which is most of what an agent needs; no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It does leave one gap: whether omitting a field leaves it untouched or clears it, which matters given the 'overwrites' wording.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents the parameters, and 3 of 5 (name, description, public) are echoed in prose. library_id and response_format receive no added meaning, and no format/syntax detail is offered, so this lands at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Edit) and resource (library metadata) and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, public status), which cleanly separates it from get_library, create_library, and delete_library. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are provided. An agent must infer from the name and the sibling list that this is the update path versus create_library/delete_library, which is exactly the 'no guidance' case.

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