update manga progress

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context on top: the preview/confirm gating flow, dry_run semantics, and that omitted fields are preserved. It stops short of saying what happens when progress exceeds the known total (beyond 'Checks known totals') or what is returned.

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, then the exclusions, then the confirmation flow, then the dry_run escape hatch and the preservation rule. Sentences are tight and every one carries information, though the telegraphic style makes a couple of clauses ('Executes ordinary requested single-entry changes directly') slightly compressed.

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 mutation with no output schema, this covers the key agent-relevant unknowns: how to preview, how confirmation is obtained, and that unmentioned fields are untouched. Return shape and over-total validation behavior are the remaining gaps.

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 high (83%), yet the description still adds real meaning: 'absolute' clarifies that progress is a set value rather than a delta (the schema leaves progress undocumented), and it explains the confirmed/confirmation_id round trip. It does not clarify title-vs-media_id resolution in prose, though the schema covers that.

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 precise verb, resource and scope: 'Set absolute chapters read on an existing manga entry.' It also excludes out-of-scope behavior ('Does not request status, score, dates or other field changes'), which cleanly separates it from update_manga_score, update_anime_progress and update_list_entry 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?

Clear context for the ordinary path ('Executes ordinary requested single-entry changes directly') and an explicit procedure for the destructive/bulk path: preview, ask user, repeat with confirmation_id and confirmed:true. It does not explicitly name update_list_entry as the alternative for multi-field edits, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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