update_user_book_read

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

Description discloses key behavioral trait: 'Preserves unspecified fields' indicating partial update semantics. Also reveals support for page and audiobook progress tracking. No annotations present, so description carries full burden; it adequately covers mutation effects but lacks details on side effects or authorization.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: first states action, second adds behavioral constraint, third lists capabilities. No redundant or filler content; front-loaded with core purpose.

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 moderate-complexity update tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, partial update, and supported progress types. Could mention idempotency or return value expectations, but overall sufficient for competent usage.

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 covers all parameters (100%) so baseline is 3. Description adds value by summarizing partial update behavior and progress tracking context, which helps interpret optional parameters. Does not add new detail beyond schema for individual parameters, but high-level semantics are clarified.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Update' and resource 'reading date or progress entry'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_user_book_read' or 'delete_user_book_read' by focusing on modification. Explicitly mentions preservation of unspecified fields and support for two progress types, adding specificity.

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?

Description implies use for modifying existing entries but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like creating or deleting. No 'when not to use' or comparison to other update tools provided.

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