update anime score

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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent, open-world; the description adds the important operational detail they cannot: no automatic score conversion between formats, zero clears the score, omitted fields are preserved, and the preview-then-confirm handshake for destructive writes. That is the extra context a mutating tool needs.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the score-format rule that an agent most needs. Slightly information-packed (format scales, confirmation flow, dry_run, field preservation in one block) but nothing is redundant.

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 destructive single-field mutation with no output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers value semantics, preview/confirm workflow, and preservation of untouched fields. It stops short of stating auth/scope requirements or what the preview response contains.

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 parameters are already documented, but the required 'score' field has no schema description and the prose compensates with scale/format semantics and zero-clears behavior. It does not explain how 'title' resolution interacts with 'media_id' beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Set an existing anime entry score') and pins down the value semantics (scoreFormat scales, zero clears). It does not explicitly route away from the generic sibling update_list_entry or toward update_manga_score, but the anime-score scope is unambiguous from the sentence itself.

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 a clear operating rule: ordinary single-entry changes execute directly, destructive/bulk changes return a preview that must be confirmed and repeated with confirmation_id/confirmed:true, and dry_run previews anything. What is missing is explicit guidance on when to prefer this over update_anime_progress, update_anime_status, or update_list_entry.

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