update anime status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: the preview-then-confirm protocol, 'Never fabricate approval' semantics, dry_run behavior, and 'Omitted fields are preserved'. Minor tension remains: annotations flag every call as destructive while the description says ordinary single-entry changes execute directly, so the agent may be unsure whether a simple status change also needs the confirm round-trip.

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 action and the constraint that progress is untouched, then the confirm workflow. The six-value enum recital duplicates the schema enum and is the one sentence that doesn't fully earn its space.

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?

Covers the hard parts for a 6-parameter mutation tool: preview/confirmation, dry-run, and field preservation, with no output schema to explain. It still doesn't describe what the success response or the preview payload contains, leaving the agent to guess what it hands back after the confirmed retry.

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 83%, so the schema already explains title resolution, media_id, dry_run, confirmed and confirmation_id; the description mainly repeats the status enum and adds the 'category' meaning (status only, no progress). The valuable addition is linking confirmation_id to 'this exact write preview', but that workflow is largely for the bulk path rather than the required status parameter.

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+resource ('Set ... the existing anime entry status') and enumerates the allowed values, making clear it touches status only. The clause 'Episode progress is not inferred' plus 'existing anime entry' distinguishes it from update_anime_progress, update_anime_score, and add_anime_to_list without opening their 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 clear operational routing: ordinary single-entry changes execute directly, destructive/bulk changes return a preview that must be repeated with confirmation_id and confirmed:true, and dry_run:true previews anything. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools (update_anime_progress / update_anime_score / update_list_entry) as alternatives, so the agent must infer the boundary from 'only ... status'.

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