abs_authors

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: Bearer auth from ABS_API_TOKEN, self-hosted Audiobookshelf only, writes gated by confirm=true AND ABS_ALLOW_WRITES=true, dry-run sends nothing, and destructive/credential actions (delete, scan, match, purge, restore, API key, password, settings) get an extra preview warning. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent writes rather than contradicting them.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: environment/auth constraints first, then write-gating and dry-run semantics, then the action list. The opening sentence ('covers the authors toolset (5 operations)') is slightly meta and the count is arguably off since help is a sixth enum value, but there is little wasted text.

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?

With no output schema and 6 parameters including nested body/query/params objects, the description covers the operational essentials an agent needs: auth, write safety, dry-run default, and how to discover per-action parameters via help. It omits which path params each action requires (e.g., id for get_by_id), though help/target mitigates that.

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 body, query, params, target, and the confirm const semantics. The description restates the confirm/help semantics rather than adding new syntax, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource (authors toolset) and enumerates the concrete operations (delete_by_id, get_by_id, patch_by_id, post_match, delete_image), which is far beyond restating the name. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like abs_items or abs_search, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives actionable routing: use action 'help' with target to inspect one action's parameters, omit confirm for a dry-run preview, and only execute by setting confirm to boolean true. It does not explain when an agent should pick an author operation versus a sibling toolset, but within the tool the when-to-use guidance is clear.

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