update list entry

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the crucial nuance that ordinary single-entry changes execute directly while only destructive/bulk changes return a preview requiring confirmation_id + confirmed:true. It also discloses that omitted fields are preserved and that dry_run validates without executing — context the annotations cannot convey.

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 action and target, then the field list, then the confirmation workflow — a sensible order with little waste. "Only patch fields explicitly requested" and "Omitted fields are preserved" restate the same guarantee from two angles, a minor redundancy.

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 7-parameter nested mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers execution vs. preview behavior, dry-run validation, field preservation, and the title-resolution caveat. It leaves the shape of the preview response and any auth/rate-limit constraints unstated, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 71%, and the description reinforces the semantics that matter most: progress/volumes are absolute rather than deltas, and only explicitly requested fields are patched. It also frames the confirmation_id/confirmed pairing as a workflow rather than two bare fields, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 ("Patch an existing anime or manga entry") and enumerates the patchable fields, which separates it from add_anime_to_list and remove_list_entry. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the specialized siblings update_anime_progress, update_anime_score, and update_anime_status, so the agent must infer that this is the general-purpose path.

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?

The description gives a clear procedural rule for the preview/confirm flow and for dry_run, which is genuinely useful. But it never says when to choose this tool over the narrower update_* siblings or bulk_update_entries, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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