Обновить статус ВН

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions changing the status and does not disclose that vote and notes can also be updated, that notes overwrite existing notes, or any permission or side-effect considerations. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise: one purpose statement followed by a helpful example. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description focuses only on status updates and omits the tool's broader capability to also set vote and notes. It does not mention return behavior or side effects, leaving the description incomplete relative to the tool's actual scope despite the schema covering parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small semantic mapping with 'В процессе' and 'Завершено', but it does not explicitly map these to the enum values or clarify vote/notes usage. The schema itself handles most parameter meaning, so the description provides marginal added value.

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 'Изменяет' (changes) and the resource 'статус визуальной новеллы' (status of a visual novel) in the user's list. The example 'переместить из "В процессе" в "Завершено"' concretely illustrates the action, and the purpose is distinct from siblings like add_vn_to_list or remove_vn_from_list.

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 provides a concrete usage example ('переместить из "В процессе" в "Завершено"'), which implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as adding a new entry with add_vn_to_list or removing one with remove_vn_from_list. Guidance is thus implied rather than fully explicit.

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