Saves a Bilibili video observation to the local diary and marks the video as seen using the provided title, BV ID, and note, without publishing externally.
Save a local diary observation and mark video seen. Do not invent observations. No external publication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bvid | Yes | ||
| note | Yes | ||
| title | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-open-world, non-destructive write operation. The description adds useful context that the save is local and that the video is marked seen, but it does not cover permissions, failure behavior, duplicate handling, or what 'mark video seen' changes on the server.
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?
Three short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and no wasted wording. The constraints that follow earn their place by limiting what may be saved and where it goes.
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 write tool with three required parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the required identifiers, the meaning of the note/title fields, what happens on save, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps an agent must infer.
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 0%, and the description does not mention the required bvid, title, or note parameters at all. The word 'observation' weakly implies the note field, and 'video seen' weakly implies bvid, but formats, constraints, and title semantics are left entirely to the schema.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('Save a local diary observation') and adds a secondary side effect ('mark video seen'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this write operation from the sibling whale_diary tool, so an agent could confuse the two without inspecting schemas.
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 phrase 'Do not invent observations' and 'No external publication' set content and scope constraints, and the action implies usage after viewing a video. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives such as whale_diary or whale_video.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.