set_edition_owned

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates a mutable action (to set ownership), but lacks details on effects (e.g., overwrites previous status, permissions required, confirmation messages). For a simple boolean toggle, this may be sufficient but is minimal.

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 concise sentences: first states the main action, second gives a clear prerequisite. No redundant information; 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but for a simple mutation tool with two well-described parameters, the provided information is largely sufficient to use it correctly. Could be improved by noting what the tool returns or confirms.

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% with both parameters well-described. The description adds little beyond the schema: it restates the ownership marking and prerequisite. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already explains parameters.

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?

Clearly states the action 'mark an edition as owned or not owned' and identifies the resource (edition). Additionally, provides a prerequisite (use get_edition to find edition ID), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_owned_books.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use get_edition first to find the edition ID, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with other ownership-related sibling tools like set_user_book.

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