Update a library

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: this targets an external library specifically, and the operation is deprecated, which the annotations do not convey. It still omits auth/permission requirements and what the PUT mutates.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first line 'Update a library' simply restates the title verbatim and earns nothing, and the operation/tag metadata is boilerplate. Two of the four lines carry no decision-relevant information.

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 mutation tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile and whose schema is fully documented, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the vague deprecation pointer that names no successor, leaving the agent unable to act on it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, name, importPaths, and exclusionPatterns. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Update an existing external library') and the underlying operation (PUT /libraries/{id}), so an agent can distinguish it from get_library, create_library, delete_library, and scan_library. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent among those siblings, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists' line hints at a usage preference, but it never names the replacement tool, so the guidance is not actionable. No other when-to-use or prerequisite context is given.

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