update manga score

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: ordinary single-entry edits execute directly while destructive/bulk changes return a preview, the confirmation_id/confirmed:true repeat protocol, dry_run previewing, and that omitted fields are preserved. That is exactly the write-safety detail 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 core action and score semantics, then the safety protocol. Dense but nearly every clause carries unique information; the middle sentence ("Executes ordinary requested single-entry changes directly") is the only slightly awkward construction, and the confirmation sentences run long.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, preservation of omitted fields, previewing, and the human-approval workflow. It stops short of describing what the preview response contains or how to interpret the returned candidates when title resolution is ambiguous, though the title parameter's own schema text covers part of that.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: score is interpreted against the owner's scoreFormat enum of five scales, zero clears the score, and no conversion is performed. dry_run and the confirmation protocol are also explained in prose, not just in field descriptions.

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 an existing manga entry score") and immediately names the domain constraint (owner's scoreFormat with the five concrete formats). An agent can distinguish this from update_anime_score and update_list_entry by the resource alone, without opening any 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?

Gives clear operational guidance: zero clears, no automatic conversion, dry_run for previewing, and the preview-then-confirm loop for destructive/bulk changes. It does not explicitly route the agent to siblings (e.g. use update_list_entry for status or progress), so a small inference gap remains.

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