patch_libraries_by_id

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which are not contradicted. The description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond idempotent update; it doesn't explain partial vs full replacement or what happens on missing fields. With annotations already conveying the core semantics, a 3 is reasonable.

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 brief and gets to the point, but the structure is somewhat sparse; it includes an HTTP path and argument list, which is useful, but could be more concise in prose. It doesn't waste words, but the lack of context makes it too terse.

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 availability of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it must clarify the resource semantics and parameter expectations. With 0% schema coverage and no details about the `body` structure, an agent would struggle to know what to send. The pointer to GET /schema is helpful but not embedded in the description's guidance.

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 0%: the schema provides no descriptions for `id` or `body`. The description adds minimal info: `id` is a path parameter Thank you. What will you do? Tell me how you will create the JSON output and ensure the scores are justified. The description also says `body` is the request payload and to read GET to see fields, but it doesn't explain what `id` represents (library ID? item ID?). This is a significant gap.

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 it updates a single library by ID via PATCH, but the 'library' resource is ambiguous (could be a library item or a media library). It does not mention what fields are updatable or the effect on the resource. Distinguishes from siblings by being a PATCH by ID, but there are many other PATCH endpoints.

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 says 'Update a single library by ID on server' and points to GET /schema for fields, but does not explain when to use this vs. other PATCH endpoints like patch_libraries_by_id_narrators_by_narrator_id or patch_settings. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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