Set reading progress

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

The description states it's a manual set operation, indicating mutation, but doesn't disclose potential side effects, validation, or authorization needs. With no annotations providing safety cues, this is minimally transparent.

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?

Single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action, and efficient with zero waste. Every word 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?

For a simple tool with two required string params and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and one use case. It doesn't discuss return values or error handling, but complexity is low, so it's mostly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'book' to bookId and 'last-read chunk id' to chunkId, but adds no extra detail like format or constraints, providing only baseline semantic context.

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 'set', the resource 'last-read chunk id for a book', and provides an example use case ('to jump or re-read'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_progress' and 'read_chunk'.

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 usage with the example 'to jump or re-read', offering clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., book must exist, chunk must be valid), which would strengthen guidance.

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