komga_libraries

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context on top: the auth mechanism (X-API-Key or basic auth), the KOMGA_ALLOW_WRITES gate, the confirm=true requirement, and that omitting confirm yields a dry-run that 'sends nothing.' It further enumerates which actions trigger extra warnings (delete, scan, trash empty, API key revoke, password change), which is precisely the behavioral detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then auth, then write-safety, which is the right priority order. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries non-obvious information; the only waste is the destructive-action list partially duplicating the action enumeration that follows it.

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 six-parameter, nested-object, multi-action mega-tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, write gating, dry-run behavior, destructive-action warnings, and secret redaction. What remains thin is per-action semantics for the generic verbs, though the documented 'help' action provides a discovery path for 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 body, query, params, action, target and confirm are already documented, including the const:true constraint on confirm. The description's only added meaning is the help/target discovery workflow and the dry-run consequence of omitting confirm, both of which the schema largely restates; 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?

The description names the resource ('libraries toolset') and enumerates all ten actions, so an agent knows exactly what surface it covers. It stops short of explaining what the generic verbs (delete, get, patch, post) operate on, and never contrasts itself with siblings like komga_series or komga_books, relying on the resource name alone to differentiate.

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?

Strong operational guidance: 'action help with target returns one action's parameters' tells the agent how to self-discover per-action schemas, and 'Self-hosted Komga only' sets a clear applicability constraint. It does not state when to choose this toolset over a sibling (e.g. libraries vs. series), so the routing decision is left implicit.

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