update anime progress

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

Goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by explaining the two-phase write: ordinary single-entry changes execute directly, destructive/bulk changes return a preview that requires confirmation_id plus confirmed:true. It also discloses that omitted fields are preserved and that totals are validated, which is exactly the mutation-safety context annotations can't express.

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?

Seven short, front-loaded sentences that each carry information. Minor redundancy between the preview sentence and 'Set dry_run:true to preview any change', and the 'Destructive/bulk' phrasing is slightly odd for a single-entry tool when bulk_update_entries is a sibling.

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 6-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the execution model, the confirmation gate, dry-run, and field preservation — everything needed to call it safely. Only the failure mode when progress exceeds known totals is left implicit.

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 83%, so most params are already documented, but the undocumented `progress` is compensated by 'Set absolute episodes watched' and 'Checks known totals'. The dry_run and confirmation flow is reinforced in prose beyond the schema descriptions; only the interaction between progress and episode totals (error vs clamp) remains unstated.

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 ('Set absolute episodes watched on an existing anime entry') and pins down the key semantic — absolute set, not increment — which is exactly what distinguishes it from update_manga_progress and bulk_update_entries in the sibling list. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 excludes other field changes ('Does not request status, score, dates or other field changes'), which implicitly routes to update_anime_score/update_anime_status, and lays out the preview→confirm→repeat workflow. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the routing is inferential rather than stated.

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