library_operation

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

Annotations indicate the tool is read/write (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'perform operations' but does not disclose that operations like 'empty' might remove all content or whether changes are reversible. With annotations providing basic safety info, the description offers minimal additional behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with 8 words, immediately stating the core action and listing operation types. It is extremely concise with no wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 6 parameters and 5 operations, the description omits critical details: return values (no output schema), error behavior, prerequisites, and whether operations are in-place or create new libraries. The openWorldHint suggests potential side effects not described. The description is too brief to fully inform an agent.

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 descriptions cover 83% of parameters, providing clarity on each parameter's purpose. The description adds a list of operations but does not explain parameter relationships (e.g., source_library_ids only relevant for set operations). Given high schema coverage, the contribution is marginal, earning a baseline 3.

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 explicitly states 'Perform set operations on libraries' and lists the specific operations (union, intersection, difference, copy, empty). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_library (creates new) or delete_library (removes).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. For example, it does not clarify whether 'copy' should be used instead of create_library for duplicating a library, or when to prefer edit_library for modifying existing libraries. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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