bookstack_chapters_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, if it overwrites or merges fields, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The description mentions what can be updated but not how the update behaves, leaving significant gaps 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 with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and lists key fields without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 7 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, and while schema coverage is high, the description adds little value beyond repeating parameter names. For a mutation tool, more context on safety and outcomes is needed.

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 all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description lists fields (name, description, tags, priority) that map to some parameters, adding minimal context about what can be updated. However, it doesn't explain semantics beyond the schema, such as interactions between fields (e.g., description vs description_html) or that 'tags' replaces existing ones (which is in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does heavy lifting.

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 chapter's details') with specific fields mentioned (name, description, tags, priority). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bookstack_chapters_create' (create vs update) and 'bookstack_chapters_read' (read vs update), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'bookstack_chapters_delete' (update vs delete) beyond the verb.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a chapter ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new chapters), or refer to sibling tools like 'bookstack_chapters_create' for creation or 'bookstack_chapters_read' for viewing. Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' but lacks explicit context.

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