mylar_comics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behaviors like background execution ('Runs in a background thread') and destructive delete warning ('WARNING: pass directory='true' to also delete the comic folder from disk (rmtree)'). However, it lacks details on side effects for other mutating operations (e.g., change_book_type, change_status), permission requirements, or error handling.

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 well-structured as a bullet list with a clear opening instruction. Each operation is documented in one line with its parameters and brief explanation. It is concise yet thorough, front-loading the general usage pattern and itemizing operations without unnecessary prose.

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 the complexity (12 operations, 0% schema coverage), the description covers all operations with signatures and basic behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Some parameter semantics and behavioral details are incomplete, but the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly for most operations, making it reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage and only exposes operation and arguments, so the description must compensate. It provides per-operation parameter lists and explains many key semantics (e.g., booktype values, id='all' for bulk, type_='story_arc' for arcs, directory='true' for folder deletion). Some parameters remain cryptic (e.g., issue, pageSize, serinfo in mylar_find_comic), but overall it adds substantial meaning beyond the 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 it handles 'mylar comics operations on Mylar3' and lists all supported operations with specific verb+resource pairs (e.g., 'mylar_add_comic(id) — Queue adding a series'), distinguishing this tool from sibling tools focused on issues queue, lists, providers, and system.

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 implies clear usage context: use this tool for comics-related operations (add/delete/get/pause etc.) on Mylar3. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the scope is well-defined through the operation list and sibling context.

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