bookstack_books_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, if it's idempotent, or what happens to existing fields not specified. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the required 'id' parameter.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), response format, error handling, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The high schema coverage helps, but the description alone leaves significant gaps for an update operation.

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?

The description lists updatable fields (name, description, tags, template settings), which aligns with some parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a book's details'), specifying the fields that can be updated (name, description, tags, template settings). It distinguishes from siblings like bookstack_books_create (create) and bookstack_books_read (read), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from bookstack_books_delete (delete) or other update tools like bookstack_chapters_update.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the book ID), when not to use it (e.g., for partial updates vs. full replacements), or how it relates to sibling tools like bookstack_books_create or bookstack_books_delete.

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