bookstack_shelves_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what fields can be updated but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing data not mentioned (e.g., does it preserve other fields?), or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 states the core purpose upfront. It lists the key fields that can be updated without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the required 'id' parameter or separating field categories.

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 incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects, response format) or provide usage guidance. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output information that would help an agent understand the full context of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description lists the updatable fields (name, description, tags, book collection) which aligns with parameters in the schema, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the 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 bookshelf's details'), specifying the fields that can be modified (name, description, tags, book collection). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bookstack_shelves_create' (create) and 'bookstack_shelves_delete' (delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bookstack_shelves_read' or other update tools in the system.

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 an existing shelf ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new shelves), or refer to sibling tools like 'bookstack_shelves_create' for initial creation or 'bookstack_shelves_read' to check current details first.

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