Update a library item

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses meaningful behavioral details: text is checked against content_rules, and it explains three distinct 409 failure modes with their meanings. This tells an agent how the operation can fail and what conflicting states indicate, which annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded and dense with useful information, with no filler. The semicolon-heavy error-code sentence is slightly packed, but every clause earns its place.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the mutation, validation, conflict errors, and usage context. It omits success-result shape and does not clarify that supplying only id is unlikely to change anything.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by enumerating status values, clarifying that text is validated against content_rules, and distinguishing explicit order from first/last position. It does not explain whether fields can be combined or whether at least one optional field must be supplied.

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 a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the exact mutable fields: status, text, and queue position/order. It also distinguishes this single-item operation from bulk siblings by repeatedly scoping it to 'one library item' and 'one item'.

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?

It gives clear usage context: edit, reorder, archive, or restore one item. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as bulk_archive_library or bulk_queue_library, nor does it state when not to use this tool; the one-item scope only implicitly routes multi-item work elsewhere.

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