library_update

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint true and readOnlyHint false (modification). The description adds the critical behavioral trait that the tool must only be called after user confirmation, which is not in annotations. No contradictions. Minor gap: no mention of authorization or side effects beyond metadata updates.

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 well-structured with a clear header, numbered pattern, and succinct examples. Every sentence earns its place, providing necessary context without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers usage flow and parameter intent. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid notebook ID), but the overall picture is complete for an update tool with good annotations.

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% with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description adds value by grouping the updatable fields and emphasizing the confirmation pattern, making it clear how parameters relate to the workflow. This goes beyond repeating schema info.

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 'Update notebook metadata' and lists the specific fields (topics, description, use_cases, tags, url). It differentiates from sibling tools like library_add (create) and library_remove (delete), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 a precise pattern: identify target and fields, propose changes, get explicit confirmation, then call. Examples illustrate the workflow. This is explicit guidance on when and how to use the tool, with no reliance on inference.

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