convert_book

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior of adding a format without creating a new book, and explains the source format selection logic. It does not cover permissions or error states, but the core mutation behavior is well-described.

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, each earning its place. The first sentence gives the core purpose and outcome, the second provides a use case and fallback logic. No wasted words.

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 simple conversion tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, source selection, and primary use case. It could mention error handling oridempotency, but it is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the default for to_format (though schema already says 'Default azw3') and providing the fallback order for source_format ('epub > azw3 > mobi > fb2 > pdf'), which is not in the schema. It does not add clarity for book_id, but schema coverage is 67% and description compensates well.

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 verb 'converts' and the resource 'book to another format', and explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it adds the format to the same library book rather than creating a new one. This sets it apart from siblings like add_book.

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 specifies it is 'Ideal for generating AZW3 for Kindle' and explains the fallback order for source_format. It provides context on when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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