add anime to list

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

With destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false already declared, the description adds substantial context beyond annotations: non-overwrite semantics, that omitted fields are preserved, that score follows the account's format, and the full preview/confirmation handshake including 'Never fabricate approval' on confirmation_id. It also reconciles the destructive hint with the direct-execution path for ordinary single-entry adds.

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?

Front-loaded with the core constraint, then the execution/confirmation model, then the dry_run escape hatch. Dense and largely waste-free, though the dry_run sentence slightly overlaps the schema's own dry_run description.

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 an 8-parameter destructive write tool with no output schema, the definition covers safety, confirmation, and field-preservation behavior. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what happens when neither media_id nor a unique title resolution is supplied beyond what the schema already notes.

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 coverage is 63%, and the description compensates on the highest-risk fields: status is mandatory, score uses the account's format (beyond the raw 0-100 bound in the schema), and confirmed/confirmation_id are bound to the described preview flow. Remaining params (progress, media_id, title) are left to schema descriptions, which do cover them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add anime') and immediately narrows scope with 'only if no entry exists' and 'Existing entries are never overwritten by add.' That negative clause implicitly draws the boundary against update_list_entry/update_anime_status, so an agent can tell add from update without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use mechanics: explicit status required, dry_run:true to preview, and the confirm-then-repeat-with-confirmation_id loop for destructive/bulk changes. It never names the specific sibling to use instead when an entry already exists, so the alternative is inferred rather than stated.

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