library_operation

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

Annotations give a blanket destructiveHint=true, but the description adds granular value by specifying that empty, difference, and intersection replace or discard target library contents, while union and copy do not. This per-operation destructive detail goes beyond the annotations, though it omits permission requirements and reversibility.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the destructive caveat follows immediately. It could have been slightly more efficient by tying the destructive note directly to the operation names, but it is well-structured.

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 6-parameter, multi-mode, destructive, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and destructiveness but omits which parameters each operation requires (e.g., source_library_ids for union) and what the call returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents name/description (copy-only) and source_library_ids (union/intersection/difference). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond mapping operations to destructiveness, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (set operations on libraries) and enumerates the five supported operations, which is more than a restatement of the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as create_library, edit_library, or delete_library, so it falls 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling library tools (get_library, create_library, edit_library, delete_library, transfer_library), nor any stated prerequisites. The operation list implies usage, but no alternatives or conditions are named.

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